April 30, 2017

Animal Farm or Funny Farm

I recently read a short Letter to the Editor from the Western AG Reporter (the letter was scanned from a newsprint and emailed to me.) The letter writer pointed out that the fish and wildlife department was fining a man hundreds of dollars for “harassing” wildlife. It seems that a bear was attacking his livestock, so he was using his pick-up truck to chase the bear away. The letter writer wanted to know if the livestock belonged to this man and they were on his property, then why isn’t the fish and wildlife department being fined for THEIR wildlife harassing his cows?

The solution is clear. Simply shoot the damned bear!

I’ve always said the Environmentalists always take and never give. They take life from people for their idiotic purposes. In this case, the man would have been better off to just shoot the damned bear. Give the environmentalists exactly what they are asking for.

Mind you, of course, that authorities, who collectively lack enough brains to know to get in out of the rain, along with their buddies at the environMENTAL institutes, teach that “hazing” is a good tool to use to keep large predators from attacking livestock and humans – a means of cohabiting with wild animals. I think a truck is a great tool to use to “haze” a bear.

Get a life!

They’re coming to take me away, aha! They’re coming to take me away oho! To the Funny Farm where life is beautiful all day long.

Do We Live in a Free Country?

wake up americaThis morning I was watching a local news channel from Florida. The subject was about a “city code” that prohibits any homeowner from renting his/her property “short-term.” There was no given definition to “short-term.”

The city mayor said the “code” was enacted by the town council because other residents complained that their neighbors were always changing. What? Are you serious? You mean to tell me that because a neighbor doesn’t like the idea that who might be living next door is a mystery, a city bans a property owner from renting his private property?

And who wants to deny that we live in a fascist state, with totalitarian operatives calling the shots?

But pay no attention to ANY of this. Go get in line for that “EYE” phone spying product coming out. That way you can probably get a FREE “app” to directly report when your neighbors do something you don’t like.

 

Mexican wolves: growing problem in Southwest

Wolves are a predatory creature with primary food sources being large-hoofed mammals like elk, deer and, as ranchers see too often, cattle. The reintroduction of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico is of concern to ranchers as the pack numbers continue to increase…
Source: Mexican wolves: growing problem in Southwest

Wolf expansion has ranchers worried about their livelihoods 

Recent decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to expand the number of Mexican wolves and the area the wolves are allowed to roam, has Greenlee County ranchers extremely worried. Wolves will now be allowed to roam freely across all of Greenlee County and about two-thirds of both Arizona and New Mexico.
Source: Guest Column: Wolf expansion has ranchers worried about their livelihoods – Eastern Arizona Courier: Opinion

Builders flood Congress to block Obama’s EPA rules for creeks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to put under federal oversight any pond or stream that has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway, even if the smaller body of water flows just a few weeks a year. Opponents fear it could mean permission would be needed to even dig a small ditch or build a road.

Source: Builders flood Congress to block Obama’s EPA rules for creeks – Personal Liberty

Want to Fight Communistic Central Control but Don’t Want to Leave the Country to Do It?

Fight the cancer of Communistic principles from the comfort of your own bunkhouse…. learn how to say No.

Joan Veon said that Public Private “Partnerships” exist to manage the assets of the government. And that would necessarily include assets that the government, usually a bureaucracy, lays claim to control.

Video of Joan Veon on public private partnerships.

All the critics are in agreement that WOTUS[Waters of the United States] is about controlling all waters, and thereby private property land use, of the US.
http://gardner.house.gov/press-release/gardner-votes-protect-colorado-wotus-rule

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/09/24/ncba-issue-another-warning-on-wotus-impact/

It ain’t rocket science. Central control of private property is pure Marxism. (Last part of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto.) Control equals wealth. Control equals ownership. Central control abolishes private property. Central, regional, national, global “planning” schemes are not legitimate options to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. Regionalism is not a safe alternative to fascist Nationalism, the evil philosophical twin to Communism that robs Americans of the sacred individual right to just compensation for takings of private property for bureaucratic purposes of controlling water quality, providing habitat for animals.

Learn how to Just Say No.

So, let’s talk about what communism is or is not. Is all central control of government assets communistic? No, don’t be silly. We are talking about the centralized control of private property and rights that are being systematically seized outside of the normal transfer of rights process and then controlled conjunctively through the administrative state and bureaucracies that are routinely being characterized as lawless by more and more legal scholars.

At some point I think people will begin to connect the take-over of private property land to other private property rights such as employment. For example, Cuba’s Slave Trade in Doctors. (May be a Paywall. Hint: You might be able to bypass the Pay Wall by placing the title in a Google search box.)

Now think about Obamacare. Does Obamacare enable public private “partnerships” to skim the difference off the labor of the enslaved, if you will, American doctors? We now find out that the Obamacare bill was intended to be obscure. And it is in many ways.

It clearly takes over a large fraction of the US economy and that is dangerous to American exceptionalism.

The reason I put the word partnership in quotes is because in a real partnership there is a sharing of profits and liabilities. But government typically dodges liability because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A public private partnership can include a publicly traded corporation that wealthy hedge fund speculators can invest in. The profit margin involved when enslaving doctors can amount to a lot of money for public private partnerships composed of small groups of politically well connected friends of the White House. In fact, such public private partnerships can hire top political figures (amoral opportunists) as safeguards against adverse legislation and or prosecution, and lend the whole scheme an air of legitimacy, of “giving back”.

Instead of true partnerships, the general concept of public private partnerships looks like a special delegation of governmental power to a select private company along with a smoke screen of borrowed sovereign immunity. Favoritism, corporate cronyism, oligarchy and monopoly were disfavored by our Founders who believed in equality under the law. Corporate cronyism fits the Communist form of government far better than the American example of equal treatment. Cronyism smacks of the idea that certain favorites are above the law.

So, let’s take a look at another specific instance of “assets of the government”. Texas has 1,500 years worth of groundwater, even if it does not rain again. Nearly all of it is privately owned. The Texas scare narrative is that we will never develop the technology to get it out of the ground. Surely, the advancement of engineering technology to extract water will not magically stop.

Through a heritage of ancient and relevant English, Spanish and French law, America, including Texas, developed sets of legal concepts that govern relationships between users of surface water with a governing authority managing that surface water and resolving conflicts between users with surface water rights. But in Texas (as in states east of the Mississippi), groundwater is owned outright by the individual land owner, the same as other underground minerals such oil and gas.

So when talking about surface water, the creation of a Texas Water Trust, Texas Water Bank, a Texas Water Development Board and water credits, and the like, are not all that unusual. But I am suspicious of the cover story when such banking and investment schemes are used in conjunction with privately owned groundwater. There is no legitimate way to use “regional planning” to plan our groundwater rights away. Regionalism, in the form of “regional planning” schemes, are not legitimate alternatives to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. I am not talking about the purely voluntary water market made up of purchased groundwater rights. Voluntariness makes a market legitimate. Trickery of planning private property rights away removes voluntariness. That is why, when it comes to private property groundwater, a water trust, water bank, a state level water board and water credits are highly suspect depending upon the source of the title to groundwater rights especially so when we learn that the Greenies in the UN’s Commission on Global Governance say things such as, “Regionalism (think Texas’ regional water planning groups) must precede Globalism.”

Here is something else that is curious. Ignoring for now the unconstitutional nature of the forced “saving” of 50% of private property groundwater, think about this. How can the selling of water credits of groundwater, that can no longer be produced (because the 50% level was reached and all groundwater production was stopped for the paramount benefit of the endangered downstream fish), not end up being some sort of securities fraud?

Now, put on the conspiracy hat for a moment.

What could be the motivation behind getting the private money of American super-rich hedge fund managers and others, even more wealthy, tied up in worthless groundwater assets that cannot be developed to their full potential because of a mandatory 50% preservation of groundwater in 50 years? (Never mind that the state cannot define 100% and that it is impossible to save 50% of something when you don’t know what 100% looked like or when it existed.)

And what about the climate change clap trap? Who or what has the clout (too big to jail?) to ignore all the pump and dump (in my opinion) going on with nearly worthless carbon credits and the climate change con job? Climate change – follow the money.

Conspiracy Hat Moment:
Is the purpose of the various asset grabs to drain the wealth of the US (and other select countries?) so it (or they) can’t fight back in the next world war? (That’s right Dorothy, war is something humans will never be able to end.)

Are America’s most wealthy being duped into duping the average US citizen with the Marxist, anti-economic theme that central control increases total production?

Or is the duping really aimed, not at the general public, but at the wealthy through a campaign that only appears to be aimed at an increasingly skeptical public?

We should remember that citizen wealth is sometimes resorted to, even as recently as the current Ukrainian crisis by an impoverished and unprepared nation. Oil tycoon buys batteries for military vehicles that have none.(Pay Wall)

Knowing how important batteries are to vehicles, what’s with the EPA’s draconian regulations forcing the closure of the last US lead smelter……..

It is well established that the American revolution was financed in part by the personal wealth and family treasure of early American citizens.

So what explains the stubborn global push to keep the climate change con going, the various environmental schemes going against all the available science, the same con jobs that are draining the US Treasury and the portfolios of the most wealthy among us and the pocket books of the average American through “smart” high energy and fuel prices?

So just to recap, communism is top-down, central planning and control of private rights. I think we all need to learn how to say No as more and more are doing daily.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Robert Miller Presentation – International Seminar on the Doctrine of Discovery

Fascist Government, Wild Mongrel Dogs, Lies, And Using Humans as Guinea Pigs

“Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide this fall whether a 27-year program aimed at returning the red wolf to the wild in the isolated swampland of eastern North Carolina will go forward.”

“Now they have letters from more than 500 landowners asking them to remove wolves from their property. It is what they promised they would do when all this began. We intend to hold them to it, even if they don’t want to do it.”

“Wildlife officials assured landowners the wolves would not be likely to stray onto their land. If they did, a call to the recovery center would bring a trained officer, who would trap the animal and take it back to the reserve.”

“If the animal was troublesome, a remote-control “capture collar” equipped with a tranquilizer would be detonated, knocking the canine out.”

“In addition, large parts of the protected land were flooded for waterfowl habitation. That forced the wolves to seek different hunting land.”

“Wildlife officials contend that the wolf population has a minimal impact on private land and that they rely on the cooperation of private landowners for the repopulation effort to succeed.”

“We would not leave them behind,” Miranda said. “Whatever the case, we still have our captive population to populate a new area.”<<<Read More>>>

Karen Budd-Falen Speaking At Sheriffs Stand TALL for Constitution

Interesting comments made in this video. Perhaps the first correct statement made is when she says our rights come from God. After making comments about the Constitution, she then speaks briefly about how environmentalists are stealing our money to destroy us. Her comment was (paraphrasing) that we are funding our own destruction.

Reverse Invasion of Property

Reverse invasion of property
Marxist central control abolishes private property rights

This morning I heard on the Chad Hasty Show talk about the “need” for some sort of environmental study regarding the sonic booms in Midland and their effect on the prairie chicken aka pinnated grouse.

Hunting with even light shotgun bird loads for dove in grouse habitat causes sonic booms as the projectile breaks the sound barrier, yet, I’ve never before heard any such ridiculous objection.

The recently proposed Federal Register regulations say that no invasion of the properties will occur as a part of their [Marxist top-down central] “planning” [and control].

Those proposed regulations, 79 Federal Register 27060 and 27052, can be easily found with a google or bing search. The comment period for one of them ends tomorrow, 11 July 2014.

Prohibiting sonic booms on land adjacent to grouse breeding grounds seems like a reverse invasion of property. I’ve never heard of a reverse invasion before but I have heard of reverse condemnation. In addition, their low-level population surveys invade private property, so the Fed Register regs are based on a lie. There I said it.

How are they going to cite people for violations without invading the private land? We know full well the regulations constitute an illegitimate Marxist taking.

If there are no meaningful remedies in the administrative system (Progressive Kangaroo Court), then the long term benefits of correctly tying Marxist Socialism (Communism) to the Endangered Species Act when applied to private property are obvious. Since 1973 this nonsense has been going on. Even for biblical times, 40 years is long enough to wander the communist wilderness. It’s time to find our way out. Learn how to say No.

Ludwig von Mises figured all this out and published his analysis in 1951. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. It’s not rocket science. It’s time to start saying No.

“Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we have determined the
proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-12/html/2014-10503.htm