June 10, 2023

The Path Toward Civil War II

I am going to present historic accounts for readers. Please bear in mind, and try to lose your biased notions about who, what, when, where and how the Civil War began, was fought and was ended. I am presenting a historic document, that at the time, is what the State Government of South Carolina perceived to be the laws under which they agreed to in signing onto the Constitution to be one of the United States. Wrong or right, is NOT the issue here. What is at issue is WHAT THEY BELIEVED at the time, and what they were willing to undertake to stop it.

The State of South Carolina was the first state to succeed from the Union. This document is their Declaration of Causes of Succession.

It begins: “The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;”

Later in the Declaration it reads: “For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself.”

Slavery was a part of the reasons that South Carolina believed the United States Government was violating the Constitution, along with other treaties and agreements. The people got angry enough, knowing their succession, would no doubt, lead to war.

Today, the Texas Governor calls for a Constitutional Convention” for the purpose: “to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”” 

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” 

The governor is calling for nine amendments to the Constitution, two of which are:

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.

Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law. 

While it doesn’t spell out exactly, it appears the governor is seeking a prohibition on Executive Orders that create federal law. We can kid ourselves all we want in order to fulfill political agendas, but executive orders create federal laws.

It would appear that S. Carolina’s 1860 Declaration of Causes for Succession are very similar to what the Texas governor and many others are calling for.

As a country, we don’t seem to have learned about the importance of the Second Amendment, is there much reason to suspect we’ve learned more about the Civil War?

How far will pissed off Americans go?


Greg Abbott accuses federal agency of illegal land grab

“Our Constitution — the same Constitution you have taken an oath to uphold — rests on the principle that governments are created to protect private property owners’ rights, not destroy them,” Abbott wrote to Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze. “This principle is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of our founding document. The BLM should demonstrate that the federal government still respects private property rights and end this unconscionable land grab.”

Source: Greg Abbott accuses federal agency of illegal land grab | | Dallas Morning News


When Lawyers Write Hunting/Fishing Constitutional Amendments

Here we go again. Texas is attempting to be the 19th state to pass a constitutional amendment they think will protect their right to hunt and fish and harvest game. But, will it?

Proposition 6 reads:

“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife. This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain. This section does not affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety.”

To be up front, for whatever it is worth and for whatever one might think it would accomplish, I am in support of constitutional amendments aimed at protecting a man’s right to harvest game. However, of all the amendments I have seen and read, I fail to see how the words crafted in these amendments actually fully protect the right to hunt, fish, trap and fill one’s freezer, or supplement their income.

Why can’t legal documents be worded straight forward, clear, and precise, so that everyone can understand it and lawyers can’t make gobs of money “interpreting” it and challenging it in court? I know the answer. Do you?

Let’s look at Proposition 6. “including by the use of traditional methods”. Please explain. I recall an argument in Maine over this issue. Some were asking for the protection of the “traditional method” of being able to hunt from an ATV, while others understood walking through the woods with a deer rifle to be “traditional.” Who gets to decide what a “traditional method” is? Don’t tell me. Lawyers do. Ka-ching, Ka-ching.

Next: “subject to laws…to conserve and manage wildlife….AND” Here we have a bunch of gobbledy-gook that means nothing but does provide a whole bunch of gray area in which lawyers can thrive and profit, unless you rope in the fair Miami attorneys for slip or fall accidents. Subject to laws: Well, we are always subject to laws. As we approach a totalitarian socialist state, don’t look for being subject to laws to change anytime soon. Let’s look at “to conserve and manage wildlife.” That has meaning toward every end of the spectrum. To make my point, can I ask if it is “conserving” and “managing” wildlife to manipulate game populations to such levels as “laws we are subject to” need to be written that bans hunting to protect, preserve, “conserve and manage” game? You can read more about how to protect yourself.

I inserted the “AND” above for a reason. We need to take the entire sentence as it is written in order to better understand it: “subject to the laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife AND preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” Does this mean that the “conserve and manage” wildlife is required by the amendment in such a way as to “preserve” hunting and fishing, i.e. is there a guarantee here or a mandate that wildlife managers will “conserve and manage” wildlife for the purpose of surplus harvest? I don’t see it. What I believe it says is that laws can be written at anytime that the legislature deems it in the best interest to “conserve and manage” wildlife, rendering this not a very effective constitutional amendment. In addition, it leaves wide open the need for lawyers and courts to “interpret” what this means. Ka-ching, Ka-ching.

Davis Younts – Court Martial Attorney says the only way that any amendment can guarantee the right to hunt and fish is if that same amendment mandates the management of wildlife in surplus for the express purpose of taking fish and game.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has taken over 200 years for a Supreme Court to rule that this right is for an individual which you can find more info here. I have always thought that amendment pretty straight forward. Imagine if the Second Amendment had read, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, subject to the laws and rules to conserve and manage arms, and preserve the future of gun ownership.”

While amendments like Proposition 6 may slow down or discourage some environmentalists from efforts to end hunting and fishing, why is it that with all the effort that goes into a constitutional amendment, it can’t be written exactly for the purpose intended?

Lawyers! Phhhft!

Here’s my version of an amendment:

The people living in this state have a right to hunt, fish and trap. The state will provide managers for the purpose of perpetuating game in surplus amounts for the people to harvest.


Texas Rancher Fights Back Against BLM Land Grab

Furthermore, the BLM claims the deed that proves Aderholt’s ownership of the land, given to his parents by the State of Texas, is worthless.“The BLM is saying we should have never had a deed to it. That Texas should have never produced that deed,” Aderholt said.

Source: » Texas Rancher Fights Back Against BLM Land Grab Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!


Groups Fight Bureaucracy Over Endangered Bird That Was Never in Danger

Bad science and corrupt bureaucrats turned a beautiful migratory songbird that nests only in Texas into a 1990s terror that good science and concerned citizens are now fighting to exonerate.

The songbird is the golden-cheeked warbler and the fear it instills comes from its status as an endangered species protected by a bureaucracy that confiscates property, bankrupts businesses and imprisons decent people – and we now know that the warbler was never endangered at all.

Source: Groups Fight Bureaucracy Over Endangered Bird That Was Never in Danger | Heartlander Magazine


Governor Abbott Commands State Guard to Monitor Jade Helm 15 Operation

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is commanding the State Guard keep citizens informed about all aspects of the upcoming Jade Helm training.

Source: Governor Abbott Commands State Guard to Monitor Jade Helm 15 Operation – BigCountryHomepage.com


Moose Ticks Have Always Been Here…Or Have They?

WinterTicksFew will disagree that the moose tick, aka, winter tick (dermacentor albipictus) can be a problem and that an over-abundance kills moose. The claim I have heard for many years is that the moose tick has always been around. Has it? Is making the statement using “around” an honest depiction of more important site specificity? What also concerns me about such statements is that it gives people cause to throw up their hands as if to say that there is nothing that can be done about it now. That may be true, but if there is any hope of trying to discover whether there is some kind of effective cure, isn’t it important to have a complete understanding of this tick?

It is basic knowledge that when any specie of animal exists in abundance or is forced into living in close quarters, disease becomes prevalent. The only way a disease can become prevalent in any species, as I just described, is that somehow that disease, parasite, virus, worm, etc. had to have been introduced, or that it already existed.

Being that we are living in a post-normal or post-scientific world, the dishonest answer to everything is climate change, i.e. global warming. While moose populations in Maine have, until the last couple of years, been increasing in large quantities, this reality flies in the face of global warming arguments that because of a warming climate in Maine moose should be migrating out of the area. Doesn’t seem to be the case. This discussion isn’t necessarily about global warming. I bring it up because it is NOT an explanation that helps to discover facts about moose and winter ticks. These ticks live in the Yukon and the same ticks live in Texas.

From a science institution’s perspective, there can never be studies enough on anything. To go along with that, we humans have had our little brains manipulated in such a way that our response to far too many issues has become to demand a study or a working group to talk about it. Studies mean money and money means more incomplete studies in order that there be more demand for more studies. Very unfortunate.

Working groups are useless and a complete waste of time. Over the years I have seen them be created, propaganda presented, and absolutely nothing getting accomplished.

Having said all this, then shouldn’t we question every time someone wants more studies and form more working groups? After all, it is OUR money. We should demand results…real results.

People in Maine want to know if ticks are really killing the moose. This is the same in New Hampshire and Minnesota. New Hampshire and Minnesota insist the problem is global warming. Global warming, in their wee bit of brains, is what is the cause of what they believe to be an increase in dermacentor albipictus.

We are also, perhaps incorrectly, told that these winter ticks don’t survive in cold climates and yet moose love cold climates and seem to be the one species most effected by the tick. If the winter tick doesn’t like cold climates, then why are these same tick regularly found in The Yukon? And in Texas?

One thing we all must understand, moose suck at grooming themselves. It is helpful knowledge to understand that because moose don’t groom themselves, like lots of other wild and domestic animals, they carry around more ticks. We should be able to reasonably conclude that moose are more greatly effected by the ticks than other ungulates, because they are poor groomers.

Another fact that is seldom discussed is which other animals play host to dermacentor albipictus? Here’s a few to add to your list: elk, caribou, deer, feral swine, wolves, coyotes, cattle and horses. In order to understand how to deal with the moose tick we need to understand other hosts and how the tick is spread. Bear in mind that elk and caribou migrate, sometimes over many, many miles. We know over the years feral swine are spreading all over the United States.

But, consider this fact. According to Gabriele Liebisch, Arndt Liebisch, Stephan Paufler in a study, a horse was transported by plane to Germany from Montana:

Already on arrival at the airport of Amsterdam about 30 fully engorged ticks dropped off the horse, and during the following 4 days in the stable in Germany more than 200 engorged ticks were collected. The tick species was identified as Dermacentor albipictus, which is also called ‘winter tick’.

This study refers to this tick as “New World Tick” because it is a different species than what might be found in Germany. Germany has moose but not necessarily the same problem with the tick and the moose…yet.

Other things found in studies already completed that should be considered, involve the feral swine. In a study published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, and published on BioOne, feral hogs found in New Hampshire were tested. Remember New Hampshire blames their problem with ticks on global warming.

The expansion of feral swine (Sus scrofa) populations into new geographic regions is of concern not only due to increased range but also because they carry diseases and parasites that pose a threat to humans, livestock, and wildlife into new areas. Recently, emerging feral swine populations have been reported in the northeastern US and due to their adaptive nature will likely continue to spread. During 2009–2012, 49 feral swine were removed from three counties in New Hampshire.

Infestations of winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) were also documented on two of the feral swine which had only been reported previously on feral swine in Texas. Feral swine may not only serve as an important host for an economically important commercial swine pathogen like PRV, but they could also increase host diversity for parasites such as the winter tick, a species that can regionally impact moose (Alces alces) survival.

There’s more. I had already mentioned that these winter ticks were found in the Yukon. Published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, a study on the origins of dermacentor albipictus, showed that perhaps the tick might have hitched a ride to the Yukon.

Winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) on elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) have recently increased in numbers in the Yukon, Canada, potentially posing risks to other indigenous host species in the region.

Based on our results, winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could have originated either by translocation from central Alberta or by northward range expansion of more geographically proximate populations in northern Alberta and British Columbia. Although there was some genetic structuring of winter ticks on different hosts in the same region, we found little evidence of host specificity in winter ticks from five ungulate host species, suggesting that the winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could potentially become established on other locally available host species such as moose (Alces alces).

While on the subject of referencing existing studies, consider that some scientists find that climate and weather have less effect on the growth and reduction of ticks than others believe.

With this knowledge in hand, can we ask for a more definitive response to the origins of the moose tick than it’s always been around? Maybe it hasn’t always been around. Maybe it was brought into your state or region from someplace else or migrated there.

In reading all of this information, wildlife biologists, along with parasitologists, should be asking whether or not it is a good and responsible practice to allow for the over protection of wild species and seek perhaps a better control over human translocation of wild and domestic animals.

Just maybe what is also being realized here are some of the effects of practicing an ignorant, romantic notion of “balance of nature” where nature magically creates a healthy ecosystem where nothing is wrong. With continued and prolonged efforts to protect wild animal species at high levels, are we not promoting the spread of disease, including winter ticks? Nature allows for regulation via disease, starvation and cannibalism. The result is scarcity which is irresponsible stewardship of wildlife and benefits no human. It is the worst of all choices.

Instead of just throwing some grant money at another study to try to find out if ticks are killing moose, why not practice some good, old-fashioned, hard work and research of the information that is available. I don’t want to have somebody else tell me ticks are killing moose. I know they are. What I’m interested in is finding out if there’s a scientific (real scientific) answer for why there appears to be more ticks and how to stop them before more devastation occurs. It seems to me that nobody has a handle on this necessary information. The only cry is about global warming. Get over it!

If there’s more ticks because there’s too many moose, the solution is simple – we need to kill more moose. If the cause is due to translocation of ticks from outside the region, then let’s stop it. Finding the truth is what’s important. Global warming theory is NOT truth. Spending money to see whether or not ticks are killing moose is akin to spending money to discover if snow is cold.


Maine Should Try Some Originality in Their Quest for Constitutional Amendment

I read an article today from Texas. The link was sent to me by a reader. The article was an announcement of sorts of the Texas Legislature’s proposal for a constitutional amendment for the “right” to hunt, fish and trap. The proposal is HJR 61.

Here are the magic words:

“Sec.A34.AA(a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. (b)AAHunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife. (c)AAThis section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.”

Here is what one amendment proposal from Maine says: (LD 753)

“Section 26. Right to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish. The right of the people of this State to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish, including by the use of traditional methods, may not be infringed, subject to reasonable laws enacted by the Legislature and reasonable rules adopted by the state agency designated for fish and wildlife management to promote wildlife conservation and management, to maintain natural resources in trust for public use and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section may not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent domain, trespass or property rights.”

Recently Idaho passed a constitutional amendment for the “right” to hunt, trap and fish:

“SECTION 23. THE RIGHTS TO HUNT, FISH AND TRAP. The rights to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, are a valued part of the heritage of the State of Idaho and shall forever be preserved for the people and managed through the laws, rules and proclamations that preserve the future of hunting, fishing and trapping. Public hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. The rights set forth herein do not create a right to trespass on private property, shall not affect rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or establish any minimum amount of water in any water body, and shall not lead to a diminution of other private rights.”

Do you see what has happened? This wording is nearly verbatim to words adopted by other state fish and game departments. I am contending that these words are being deliberately pushed through any state seeking an amendment, including Maine.

I just don’t know how I can get people to realize what this wording does…..effectively nothing. Oh yeah, it MIGHT help to stop a couple of silly lawsuits here and there but will do nothing to protect a right and provide a means in which we can exercise that right. Carefully consider the language of each of these bill proposals and the Idaho amendment passed. Then picture a group of lawyers dissecting that language. Then I ask again, will this language guarantee anyone’s right to hunt, trap and fish? It’s no different than the Supreme Court of the United States declaring in Heller v. District of Columbia and NRA v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and yet, what good is that right if you are not allowed to buy a gun in state or bring one in from someplace else or to be able to go outside and use it. Our “right” might be protected, but the ability to exercise it has been taken away.

Maine sportsmen and others, at least some, recognize that fish and game departments, with each passing year, are becoming nothing more than mouthpieces and useful idiots of the environmentalists. With this infiltration of environmentalism into every facet of our being, we are only a short time away from fish and game (i.e. “natural resources”) departments deciding to manage wildlife for non consumptive use. It’s happening! Open your eyes! And then where is the “right” to hunt, fish and trap? Yep! The right still exists but those “natural resource” managers have decided that “nature” can do a better job of managing and controlling ALL wildlife and that “non consumptive” use of a “public resource” will preserve that resource. What we will see is a gradual decrease in licenses or tags available and loss of opportunities.

But nobody gets it. I get emails from a few telling me I’m wrong. Telling me that those other states that have amendments, it’s working real good. Maybe, maybe not! But I can guarantee you, it hasn’t stopped the environmentalists from taking over fish and wildlife management.

I realize that few see it the way that I do and think me wrong, and I might be. But, it is my opinion that without specific wording that mandates the fish and wildlife department to manage wildlife for surplus harvest, I’m afraid the proposed wording will only prove to protect a right without a guarantee that that right can be exercised.

It is unfortunate that it appears that these state proposals for constitutional amendments resembles what we see in news media everyday – one news source (AP, Reuters) prints a story and the whole world accepts it and parrots it. Maine should think these proposals through better and come up with some original text that will do a better job if they really want to keep hunting, fishing and trapping into the future.


In America Why Are We Writing Laws to Stop Sharia Law?

In what many people still refer to as the greatest nation on earth, the land of law and order and of justice for all, the State of Texas finds itself in the middle of trying to come up with laws to stop those practicing Sharia Law in disregard of U.S. Law. It appears this nation is at a point that it no longer enforces existing law but believes, instead, that making a new law will somehow make unlawful people become lawful.

<<<Read About It>>>


Texas Proposes “Right to Hunt” Constitutional Amendment

Below is a copy of the proposal, HJR 61, a constitutional amendment to recognize the right to “hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.” But does the wording in this amendment actually accomplish what supporters might think it will?

The wording, described by some as being “carefully considered” has too much gray area and never really guarantees anybody anything. What it guarantees, maybe, is that it recognizes harvesting of games as a management tool. It guarantees that “subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife,” if there’s any spoilage left over, you will be able to buy a license and have an “opportunity.”

It is my opinion that such a “joint resolution” might be better than nothing, sportsmen need to understand it does not and will guarantee that the state will manage game species FOR SURPLUS HARVEST. It doesn’t express that at all.

HJR 61 Proposed:

proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.


SECTIONA1.AAArticle I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 34 to read as follows:

Sec.A34.AA(a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

(b)AAHunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.

(c)AAThis section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.

SECTIONA2.AAThis proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 3, 2015. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.”