October 31, 2014

Media Needs $1,500 Permit to Take a Photo

Outrageous, isn’t it! Just think, our Federal Government – did you get that? Let me start again. Our Federal Government…..no, wait. That’s not right is it. It’s not my Federal Government and it’s not your Federal Government. It’s THEIR Federal Government. Regardless, THE Federal Government has further destroyed the Bill of Rights, among other American “things” and are requiring anybody in the “media” to buy a permit before they can take a picture on federal land. I suppose that now makes any member of the media a domestic terrorist and will be placed on a watch list. Oh, wait! They are already. You are already. I am already. We are all on a “watch list.”

Isn’t this nothing more than a reflection of the direction this country has been headed for a very long time? Oh, yes, it’s easy to pin it on that knucklehead in the Oval Office at present, but the reality is that this corporate monstrosity can and does do anything they want. If I have to point out examples of that, you are lost.

Because we the people (small p), never question and are just eager little beavers to accept central control over our lives and every tiny aspect of it, consider what we are on the verge of becoming? No, you can’t can you.

Requiring a permit to take a picture is only one small symptom of a very large problem. But the real problem is, nobody knows what the problem is.

Well, enough of this. My favorite TV show is on. I’ll be back later…..only after I’m done catching up on Facebook, and there’s a new album I can download for free onto my I phone….and there’s a sale at the mall. Later!

The Myth of Compromise

CompromiseHave you ever noticed that both sides of an issue make the claim that the other side refuses to compromise? While remaining uncompromising, one claims the other is at fault because they will not offer a compromise on some emotional issue, like hunting.

However, the bottom of the barrel is revealed in such cases when the one screaming for compromise, while refusing to compromise, finds the other at fault, calling them names or at times, a faux intellectual will attempt to cast aspersions on individuals or groups because of their uncompromising nature.

Here’s a classic example. In an opinion piece, ie. propaganda nonsense, in the Maine Portland Press Herald, a writer, posing as being in support of Question One in the upcoming referendum to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping, casts his censure onto the hunting community because they refuse to compromise and give this guy at least some of what he wants.

Through it all, I have often said the Achilles heel of the hunting lobby in Maine was the intransigent, no-compromise position they maintained while dismissing any criticism as the work of animal rights extremists.

The thought processes of a person of this nature is quite amazing to someone not so afflicted. This person believes that because he sees something differently than someone else does, it is their duty to at least give in some and let them have their way.

Do we ever see totalitarians, such as this person, compromising his beliefs? Of course not. He doesn’t have to. In his mind, he’s more intelligent than some dumb bear hunter.

Let’s understand this myth of compromise. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and a place for compromise and compromising the rock foundations of one’s beliefs, morals and heritage is not a time to implement compromise.

Let’s take one example that some people can understand. Those that can’t are of the thought process of the letter writer in question. Let’s take the Second Amendment as an example.

The Second Amendment, when written, was simple and direct: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From the very moment that Bill of Right was published, totalitarian socialists have demanded compromise in order to get rid of it. And guess what? They have gotten a lot through compromise because the people have been mind controlled to think that compromise is a good thing; it “gets something done.” Look at where the Second Amendment is today. It doesn’t even resemble “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And when is the last time you saw anti gun lobbyists compromising to give American citizens back their full right to keep and bear arms?

So, here we have a man who thinks, no, he believes, that the “hunting lobby” should cede to him what he wants because he is right and the hunters are wrong?

This is one of the problems with democracy and a progressive lifestyle. Democracy is when the majority forces the minority to do something they don’t want to do. Obviously this letter writer doesn’t like democracy when it isn’t working well for him and therefore he demands compromise. And when democracy fails him, he resorts to all other means in order to get his way.

Hunters should never compromise on such issues because it tears at the heart of hunting’s entire existence. Unfortunately we live in a democracy, which actually more closely resembles totalitarian socialism and no more than hunters should seek to change their “intransigent” ways, neither should the letter writer. And herein, lies the real difference. Where I respect the rights and beliefs of this person but think he is a moron to believe that way, I certainly have no right to attempt to force him to not be able to be an animal rights activist.

Obviously, he and way too many others just like him, don’t feel the same way as I do. Therefore, compromise should never happen.

Stevens County Commission Condemns Washington Wolf Management

Or lack of management! Somebody must pay for this atrocity and negligence!

According to Rich Landers of the Spokesman Review, the Stevens (Washington) County board of commissioners unanimously passed a resolution that condemns the actions, or lack thereof, of wildlife agents for “failing to protect people, wildlife and livestock from wolves that are naturally recolonizing the region.”

“Naturally recolonizing?” I doubt that very seriously. These are GI wolves, stocked from wolves captured and released into Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. If these animal were fish, there would be hell to pay for calling a stocked fish or its offspring “naturally” occurring.

Liability and responsibility first lies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all the non governmental agencies that participated in the illegal introduction of wolves. Disguised as a government-run and sponsored operation, the people were not told the truth about these animals, their behavior, and what the long term plans were. NOTHING promised has happened!

Now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done their dirty, nasty, deed, they have dumped the cost and responsibility of “managing” wolves into the laps of brainwashed wildlife agents who think that people suck and wolves rule.

No rational, sensible, freedom-loving people would even consider that some nasty, stinking, rotten, disease-infested animal would take any….THAT’S ANY, precedence of human rights and property. What in God’s name have we become?

Take responsibility man! Kill all the wolves in this Huckleberry Pack, as random killing only exacerbates the problem. No human should be forced to cede their rights, property and safety to any damned animal! What in hell is wrong with us?

Government May Soon Direct What Private-Sector Employees May Say in the Workplace

Employee’s Demotion for Comparing Media and Political Reaction to Trayvon Martin’s Death to Lack of Response Over Shooting of a White Baby Upheld

Decision Highlights Troubling Aspects of Potential Government Overreach in “Hostile Work Environment” Law

Washington DC – In response to a recently-announced North Carolina administrative decision upholding an employee’s demotion for comments about race, and in light of the calls for increased racial dialogue following Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, the National Center’s in-house legal scholar is warning American workers that local and federal government leaders may soon restrict racial and political speech even in private work places.

“In the wake of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, political leaders and pundits are calling for Americans to engage in frank discussions about racial issues. It is a common theme following such events, but one that is fraught with peril for American workers,” warns National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof, Esq. “Just as President Barack Obama called for a national discussion about race following Trayvon Martin’s death, pundits of all stripes are clamoring for kitchen table and water cooler talks following the death of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri. This is potentially dangerous advice.”

Any earnest discussion about race – specifically in the workplace – could very quickly lead to claims of a racially hostile work environment. Those claims can lead to demotion or termination for those participating in such conversations. A case that was recently decided by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings highlights the problem.

The facts of the case are straightforward. In brief, an employee – who was a government worker in a supervisory role – used a break in a meeting to read aloud from a Facebook post. Written from the imagined perspective of an actual 13-month-old white baby boy who was murdered in Georgia, the post lamented the decided lack of political and media attention to his death at that time as opposed to the constant attention surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death at the same general time. The post attributed much of this discrepancy to race – the baby being white and Trayvon being black.

The employee was demoted for her actions, and the recent North Carolina case upheld that decision.

“I do not have qualms with the specific outcome of the case since the employee appears to have broken clear office rules regarding cell phone and Facebook use. The problem is that the arbiter went too far in ruling that the employee’s action contributed to a hostile work environment,” said Danhof. “This has implications beyond this one government employee and could negatively impact many private sector employees as well. Many hostile work environment laws are inherently vague and therefore give the arbiter extreme latitude in deciding these cases. This is an issue that transcends race, and the way it can stifle free speech and put employees at risk for something even the President encourages shows why something must be done to reform this problem in the workplace.”

Cases such as this could very well lead to instances of government restricting speech based on content and viewpoint – where speech deemed hostile to blacks is punished and speech that is hostile to whites it not – even when such speech is on private property.

“By declaring that the employee’s speech was ‘racially and politically provocative,’ the precedent set by the hearing officer could make these types of statements actionable in a private work setting – even if the employer would not restrict such speech,” said Danhof. “That is big brother on steroids.”

“Do you think affirmative action discriminates against white and Asian students, and that some black and Hispanic beneficiaries of the program are undeserving? You better not say so out loud. Do you support ballot integrity measures such as voter identification laws? You better not talk about it, lest you be judged as hostile to blacks,” warns Danhof. “Law and justice are increasingly color-centric, not color blind. Americans who want to have earnest discussions about these and other important issues at work, do so at their own peril. ”

To read more of Danhof’s legal analysis and commentary on this issue, go here.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

1973 Endangered Species Act: A return of the Dark Centuries?

Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” is described by National Review as a “serious work of legal scholarship on the return of the prerogative to our government.”

The professor shows how the unlimited power of the administrative state comes from the King’s prerogative, a special power that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Published in 1890, Bancroft’s Works* Vol. 38 Essays and Miscellany at page 284 describes the English-American jury trial right as the end to the King’s prerogative.

And that begs the question: Did the Nevada rancher get a jury trial with regard to the taking of his preference grazing rights? Will we get jury trials when the same bureaucrats impose encumbrances through the 1973 Endangered Species Act on private Texas land?

Bancroft: “The right of trial by jury comes to the Englishmen more directly in the form of a victory. During the dark centuries, prerogative or despotism denied such a right.” Bancroft refers to the “… subtleties of the royal prerogative, or the learned malevolence.” Malevolence is defined as a vicious ill will.

“But later, with increase in intellectual strength and material stability, the people intrenched[sic] themselves in their rights, and since the magna charta this privilege has been held the dearest of a progressive people. It was a right guarded with vigilant care, and for which intelligent freemen everywhere would fight and die. To America came this sentiment, and was embodied in the constitutions of several states.”

“The victory originally achieved by the people over the government by the establishment of the jury system was the right of participation in the administration of the law. No man might thenceforth be jeopardized in person or property without appeal to his fellows for redress.”

“It was a sign of the increasing purity of political character and growing love of honesty and fair play.”

Bancroft goes on to state that, “When the government and the people were one the victory was complete.”

But with the lesser prairie chicken land grab, there is no jury trial right. We are called to evening meetings to participate in our own centrally planned and controlled impoverishment, the systematic destruction of American exceptionalism, and are allowed only to make ignorable comments about confiscatory administrative regulations that routinely and stubbornly violate ancient state land law, the US Constitution and our human dignity.

Control equals wealth. State/centralized control equals wealth for a tiny few politically well-connected people who can sometimes be referred to as oligarchs. Decentralized control means decentralized wealth, the same system that allowed my family and many millions of others to prosper in America according to our personal industry, luck, decision-making, risk-taking and more. The wealth from decentralized control created the highest per capita income in the world for Americans since the early 1830’s. On the other hand, centralized control of the modes of production, as Karl Marx puts it, is a proven 180 year loser, not to mention some 100 million deaths, subhuman misery and enslavement.

The politically deadly characteristic of the reborn prerogative is that it can contain and disguise and impose any -ism, if you will, on the American people. The prerogative can harbor the cancer of Communism, fascist Nationalism, environmentalism, worship in Gaia, animal liberation, earth liberation and Satan’s attitude of scarcity, just whatever the King wants. And all the -isms except individualism rob us of our God-given rights as set out in the Constitution.

By keeping us under-educated, a nationalized American educational system can serve to keep us too ignorant to learn how to simply say No and to get things turned around. The idea of personal liability imposed on the errant bureaucrat as discussed by Prof. Hamburger is appealing and might be the exact place to start. Especially on those who turned loose the wolves. In my opinion, it is worth a try.

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

*Notice that this volume of Bancroft’s Works was once owned about the 1950’s by a Texas public high school.

HubertBancroft

Discussion of Habitatism refined

To some, the stupid nonsense of the 1973 Endangered Species Act claims to elevate the habitat needs of the subhuman to the same level of human needs. But experience proves that compromise is not possible, that one or the other wins the irreconcilable conflict, and for the past 40 years the needs of the subhuman win out over the needs of some 315 million Americans.

For example, any one of the some 315 million Americans could own preference grazing rights in Nevada. And a Nevada rancher’s preference grazing rights were superior to any competing grazing rights of all other humans on the face of the earth. But under the ESA, the human rancher’s preference grazing rights were not superior to the needs of the subhuman tortoise in Nevada. In such dehumanizing struggles, it is instructive to note that the victims of the holocaust were also denied their property rights, their dignity, their human rights. While Marx described property as theft, our Founders described property rights as human rights.

Under the ESA, the concept of habitat for subhumans is indistinguishable from the dominance of the greater good of the fascist Communist commune over sacred individual human rights set out in the US Constitution. Those sacred individual rights include the strict forbiddance of the taking of private property without just compensation. A time may well return when bureaucrats who use regulation to violate the law will be held personally liable for conduct deemed unlawful. Such personal liability may well extend also to those who aid, abet, encourage and contribute to causes that promote the dehumanization of the American public. When one person’s rights are trumped by militaristic bureaucratic centralized control, the bell tolls for all 315 million of us.

Readings from “The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers”, Scott, 1902, make clear that the fundamental law of our Constitutional form of government is based on a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to legislatively alter. Congress has no authority to fundamentally change humans-first public policy either by expressly setting out radically new public policy as it purports to do in the Endangered Species Act any more than it has the authority to put fascist Nationalism, the Communist commune, the environment, Mother Earth, Gaia, Martians or mythical characters in priority over our human civil rights.

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

What is the magic of individualism vs. other -isms? Habitatism?

To begin with, adding -ism to the end of the word can denote the priority of the something.

To the non-law trained person, just exactly what is the expression of individualism of the American revolution referred to in an earlier writing that cited the encyclopedic reference to Hegel? Individualism is the priority of the individual. It is not dangerous egoism or anarchy as Vladimir Putin and his ilk would have you believe.

In fact, consider the peaceful society that we live in pursuant to the Constitution which sets out the individual right to free speech, the individual right to travel, the individual right to worship, the individual right to a jury trial, the individual right to cross-examine our accusers, the individual right to be paid just compensation for property taken for government purposes, the individual right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the individual right to be free from the quartering of troops in our homes, the individual right to assemble and so forth.

Consider also that our public officials swear an oath to God to defend (an active verb) our Constitution.

J. Roberts elegantly described the freedom of speech as having benefits to the citizens that outweigh the burden on government in 559 US 460.

Now consider one of the opposite political philosophies, fascist nationalism for example, in which the nation comes first, usually in the form of the greater common good (the same thing that Texas’ own Office of Public Interest Council claims to represent).

The UN was quoted as saying regionalism must precede globalism. Think now of Texas’ own regional planning commissions planning our private property groundwater rights away.

If fascist nationalism is the priority of the nation, communism the commune, environmentalism the environment, then habitatism is the priority of the habitat over individual rights. In other words, habitatism rejects our sacred individual human rights. Those rights to privately control property make America the exception to the claimed inevitability of world-wide Communism.

Habitatism is functionally indistinguishable from regionalism, globalism, environmentalism, communism, fascist nationalism in that all of these -isms lead to the use of militaristic actions we saw in the 1980’s in Poland and in 2014 in the Nevada Ranch standoff.

If not for our watered-down constitutional law education, lawyers would have figured this out long ago. If not for my further self-education after law school I would not know that our Founders considered our individualism, our individual rights, to be sacred, and to be from our Maker, thereby establishing in the US Constitution a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to alter through the Endangered Species Act for as the Texas Supreme Court similarly found in 1943 in 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024, “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.”

Habitatism attempts to create through extralegal, supra legal and in an unlimited way through the increasingly questioned Administrative State, encumbrances that unlawfully subordinate all manner of legal rights including without limitation first lien mortgages (Deeds of Trust) on privately owned land otherwise held in fee simple title in Texas according to, and governed exclusively, by ancient land title law.

In my opinion, by approving the Endangered Species Act, President Nixon capitulated more than Vietnam to the cancer of Communist ideology in 1973.

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

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today's administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Hijacking Dietary Guidelines (of all things!) for Politicial Gains

USDA’s Switch From Science-Based Nutrition Advice to Green Agenda Harms Americans

Health Policy Expert Warns Against Politicization of Diet Advice

Issues Such as Climate Change Don’t Belong in Government Policymaking About Healthy Eating, Says Health Policy Expert Jeff Stier

New York, NY/Washington DC – The naming of an “environmental nutritionist” to a top USDA nutrition post is drawing fire from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

In an op-ed published in Friday’s Des Moines Register, “Iowan’s USDA Appointment Raises Concern,” Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier writes, “The appointment of Iowa’s Angela Tagtow, a controversial ‘environmental nutritionist’ and local food activist, to head the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is causing more headaches for the agency, already facing criticism about politicization of federal nutrition advice and its consequences for public health.”

Stier earlier criticized the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and its work to establish new recommendations for federal nutrition policy. Stier’s concerns have been widely echoed over recent months, given the DGAC’s mission creep towards environmental activism. The DGAC is meeting this week in Washington.

In that context, “the appointment of ‘food crusader’ Angela Tagtow to a USDA position responsible for assessing and implementing the Committee’s recommendations is cause for serious concern,” says Stier.

In the op-ed, Stier writes, “By using the government’s official dietary guidelines as a tool to advance her well-established environmentalist agenda, Tagtow would undermine the USDA’s mandate – to provide families with science-based, impartial nutrition advice. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services administer the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which makes recommendations regarding the congressionally mandated Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines, currently being revised, are the basis for Federal food and nutrition programs and welfare benefits such as SNAP and educational campaigns, including MyPlate (formerly the Food Pyramid). The USDA touts them to be ‘authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.'”

Stier writes, “According to Politico, recent DGAC meetings raised eyebrows because ‘hot-button issues, such as diet and climate change’ are being discussed in an unprecedented way. The committee has even dedicated one of five subcommittees to ‘Food Sustainability and Safety’ to discuss how the food we eat contributes to climate change, and how the government should recommend changes to our diets based on those concerns.”

While Stier agrees that maintaining a food supply and environmental protection are important, he says, “these issues don’t belong in discussions of healthy eating. But that hasn’t stopped the DGAC from delving deeply into them over the past year. In the January meeting of the DGAC, committee member Miriam Nelson gushed about the importance of promoting foods that have the “littlest impact on the environment,” and invited testimony from sustainability expert Kate Clancy, who argued it would be “perilous” not to take global climate change into account when dispensing dietary advice.

Stier’s earlier criticism drew rebuke from the USDA, for being “premature.” In April, a USDA spokesperson seemed to back away from the row by minimizing DGAC’s role in policy-making, saying ,”the committee is still in the early stages of its work, so it is premature to guess what their recommendations might be, and even more premature to speculate about what will be included in the final dietary guidelines.”

That seems to have changed, Stier notes. “But the appointment of Tagtow to the USDA office responsible for not only developing and promoting the Dietary Guidelines, but advancing prominent programs such as MyPlate, the re-vamped version of the well-known food pyramid, suggests that the agency is doubling down on raising the profile of our diet’s alleged affect on the climate, and other issue that have more to do with political science, than nutritional science.”

Stier slams Tagtow’s firm’s mission statement as code language for politically charged activism.

Her firm’s goal was “to establish healthier food systems that are resilient, sustainable, ecologically sound, socially acceptable and economically viable…”

Stier points out that Tagtow has written that we should select meat and dairy products from animals that have only been fed grass diets.

In the op-ed, Stier challenges the USDA’s new nutrition expert for repeating the “myth that meat is an environmentally-reckless form of protein, suggesting a plant-based diet instead. She says we should reduce our consumption of meat, lean or not, not because of any potential health benefits, but in order to ‘conserve natural resources and energy.'”

Stier also debunks Tagtow’s alleged economic justifications for her radical agenda. “Tagtow has suggested that Iowans could improve the state’s economy by only eating food grown in the state, at least part of the year. She touted a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture study claiming that ‘if Iowans ate five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and Iowa farmers supplied that produce for three months of the year, these additional crops would add $300 million and more than 4,000 jobs to the Iowa economy.'”

“She fails to mention that in her utopian Iowa, residents wouldn’t likely enjoy the benefits of staples like oranges or pineapples for those months. Nor does she consider the devastation to Iowa’s agricultural community if her agro-protectionist ideals were implemented in other states. Well, now she’s headed to the federal government to promote her narrow ideology.”

Stier concludes, “The maxim that, in government, ‘personnel is policy’ is especially true here, given Tagtow’s policy-making role. The priorities she’s spent her career advancing are far from the consensus among mainstream nutritionists. Her appointment is a slap in the face to thousands of men and women in nutrition who daily work tirelessly and impartially to help Americans eat better. And it casts doubt over whether USDA is willing to dispense nutrition advice based on science rather than an activist agenda.”

Stier has written on this issue in the past, raising concerns over the Committee’s direction in a March piece in the Washington Examiner and in the Daily Caller in April of this year. He is available for press requests on this issue.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and Al Jazeera America, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post , Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings, and testified at the United Nations (video here).

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas