August 22, 2019

In Texas, Legislation to Void Federal Gun Laws

State Representative Tim Kleinschmidt has introduced legislation in Texas that would void any federal gun laws that: specifically taxes a gun or accessory, requires registration or tracking, prohibits buying or selling, or tries to confiscate guns from lawful citizens.

I have heard some argue that because some states are writing their own marijuana laws, with seemingly no opposition from the Feds, then states should be able to do the same with other laws, including gun laws. But there is a difference that few understand.

The federal government, i.e. the connected insiders, the ruling establishment, want Americans to be stoned. It renders them a drugged-up non threat community/society, mostly incapable of caring enough about anything which provides an easier means in which a tyrannical government can continue to enslave the people.

Guns? Not so much. As a matter of fact, I have claimed for some time that gun ownership by Americans is the last great deterrent to the complete servitude of U.S. Citizens. Don’t look for the Feds to roll over and play dead to state legislation that would usurp the strong arm of fascist government control over the people.

Drug and murder them; that’s okay but don’t allow them more freedom.

Share

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

Share

Taxation without representation? Sure looks like it to me.

A discussion of the unlimited power of the Administrative State in light of law of thoughts and research presented by professor Phillip Hamburger’s book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”.
http://tomremington.com/2014/08/13/is-administrative-law-unlawful/

While considering the thoughts and opinion expressed in the link above, think about the following.

The prohibition against taxation without representation began with this country’s founding. This prohibition is the reason that local boards, be they hospital districts, groundwater districts, municipal utility districts, city councils, county commissioners courts or other subdivision created by state government, are elected. The elected members of those local governments, because they are elected, represent us as they tax us.

Now consider Texas Water Code sec. 36.303 which purports to authorize an appointed state level board, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, to remove the members of a local groundwater district and call a new election to replace the board.

Sec. 36.303. ACTION BY COMMISSION. (a) If Section 36.108, 36.301, or 36.302(f) applies, the commission, after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 2001, Government Code, shall take action the commission considers appropriate, including:
(1) issuing an order requiring the district to take certain actions or to refrain from taking certain actions;
(2) dissolving the board in accordance with Sections 36.305 and 36.307 and calling an election for the purpose of electing a new board;
(3) requesting the attorney general to bring suit for the appointment of a receiver to collect the assets and carry on the business of the groundwater conservation district; or
(4) dissolving the district in accordance with Sections 36.304, 36.305, and 36.308.
(b) In addition to actions identified under Subsection (a), the commission may recommend to the legislature, based upon the report required by Section 35.018, actions the commission deems necessary to accomplish comprehensive management in the district.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1010, Sec. 4.36, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 966, Sec. 2.56, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Note that Chapter 2001, Government Code, mentioned above, is the Administrative Procedure Act.

In other words, 36.303 claims it can, again by administrative procedure, centrally control the local district, and if the local district resists, “dissolve” the board.

In other words, a board that was elected by the voters to represent the voters that it taxes can be “dissolved” if the board does not represent the Texas Natural Resources Commission, an appointed board that pays no taxes and is not accountable to the voters who are taxed in the district.

And where does the issue get litigated? In the kangaroo court system according to Chapter 2001, Government Code, set up by the Administrative State in Austin, Travis County, Texas that likes to tell the Administrative Law Judges that the Constitution limits nothing in the administrative system.

Taxation without representation is not legal by any stretch of the imagination. So, who would have ever thought that the Administrative State would have gone this far? To keep it from violating other Constitutional limitations must we proactively sue in local district court to enjoin the Administrative State from violating a list of remaining Constitutional limitations? Does the Constitution mean nothing without such judicial action? If the Administrative State has no limits, how many more of our federally protected civil human rights can it eliminate? It appears that the current state of administrative law says that the Administrative State can assume control of any property, private or otherwise, wheresoever located in the state, whenever the Administrative State gets around to centrally controlling the whole Texas economy the way Karl Marx and others of his ilk such as Stalin and Hitler envisioned it.

And it seems to me that the whole mess violates Jones v. Ross 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943) holding that “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” I also add that our Constitution cannot be altered by long-ago discredited notions of economic central control that work no where in the world except to create subhuman misery and enslavement.

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

Share

Have You Been Injured By The USFWS’s Listing of The Lesser Prairie Chicken?

DEPA Executive Director

As you know, one prong of our multi-tiered vigorous defense is in the legal arena.

We are actively collecting background stories from DEPA Investors who have been injured because of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent decision to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Your specific description of injury will support our efforts to convince the court the Fish and Wildlife Service never should have listed the species as threatened, and it will spotlight devastating effects of the decision.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Are Coyotes Herding Deer Into the City?

*Editor’s Note* – The teased and linked-to article below is a few years old but does not fail to show what will happen when predators are allowed to get out of control in numbers.

“Ranchers warned Bandera County Commissioners at their Jan. 11 meeting that deer populations around the county were declining due to coyote and feral hog predation. They were told that deer had moved into the City of Bandera for protection and that coyotes would follow the fleeing food source, thus endangering city residents.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Radio Ad for Gun Safety Course Offering in Texas

VIDEO/AUDIO: Make sure to listen all the way through and then call the Department of Homeland Security or you can piss and moan about what this guy said right here. Go ahead!

Share

When Government Regulates Government, People Lose and Eagles Die

deadeagleOh, my! Where to begin? I’ve been keeping a bit of an eye on this issue of the turning blades of wind turbines killing birds of all kind, including bald and golden eagles. Recently I posted some information about President Obama (his Fish and Wildlife Service) issuing a 30-year Incidental Take Permit, that would allow owners of wind farms to legally kill the protected eagles.

Since this announcement came, several Online have voiced some disdain for what they were hearing, but it soon became obvious that few actually understood what was going on and how the Endangered Species Act, and its history, are playing a key role.

The American Interest, a website where readers can find articles by Walter Meade, has a Meade article in reference to Obama’s granting of the Incidental Take Permit to allow the killing of eagles. For those who may not know, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is a permit that can be issued by the U.S. Government, through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10. Such a permit, grants an entity the legal right to kill a prescribed number of protected species. In this case, wind farm owners have convinced Obama (wink, wink) that their actions of protecting certain habitat will more than offset the loss of eagles from their rotating cutter blades (wink, wink).

Unfortunately, Meade does little to help the cause of stopping wind farms from the wildlife and habitat destruction they cause. Neither does the author of a piece Meade refers to. More on that in a bit.

Meade says:

This issue pits two of the biggest pillars of the green movement—renewable energy advocates and conservationists—against one another. But put in proper perspective, wind farms aren’t the kind of bird-mincing machines that some environmentalists make them out to be. Cats kill five times more birds every year; glass buildings are deadlier to our avian friends than turbine blades.

Perhaps this statement is an attempt at humor; if so it’s a bad one. I have no real issue with Walter Meade, nor do I care which side of the environmentally destructive wind farm industry he comes down on. What irks me is the absurdity of a person to make the statement about how many birds cats kill and how many birds break their necks running into plate glass windows, while attempting to compare it to windmills killing endangered birds.

The statement is as dumb as those, and there are millions of them, who use the example of domestic dog attacks vs. wolf attacks. The point being there are millions and millions of domestic dogs in this country alone, relatively compared to a handful of wolves. Of course there would be more dog attacks, especially since people and dogs are cohabiting; like in the same house and bed.

I am of the impression that Mr. Meade doesn’t understand or didn’t think before making such a ridiculous comparison. How many cats are there; especially feral cats? And certainly I think there might be a few more buildings around for birds to run into than windmills. In addition, I don’t recall ever hearing of a domestic or feral “kitty cat” attacking and killing a bald or golden eagle. I would have to do a bit of research to know if eagles fly into plate glass windows, but I think you get my point.

Another point to make about the locations of wind farms. Sometimes these farms are strategically placed in areas where prevailing winds blow and blow constantly. After all, they do need wind to generate electricity. Those winds are also used by migratory birds and as a result get caught up in the blades of the turbines and are killed.

What is not being talked about much is the fact that many of these wind farms are the pet projects of President Barack Obama. He loves them so, he took our tax money and gave it to his “pals” (voters) within the wind industry so they could construct their not so cost effective wind farms. Did you really think after allowing his “buds” to use our tax money and build giant, wildlife-killing windmills, he wouldn’t also give them their Incidental Take Permit? Or who knew anyway?

Smart people know and understand that the killing of eagles by windmills is a far cry from exclaiming the woes of cats and plate glass killing birds. In addition, some of the same smart people know and understand that when you call upon government to issue permits for themselves or to implement regulations against themselves, little right can come of it.

By not being grounded in the historic abuses of the Endangered Species Act, by political groups and our own government, would only lead someone to call upon more government regulations, dressed up with some lipstick, to fix government regulation. Such is the case in the article referred to in Meade’s piece. That article is written by Mario Loyola, called: “How Texas Can Save the Endangered Species Act.” It’s a very long and wordy piece that I’ll let readers work their way through should they choose. But I’ll point out a couple of things.

The reference to efforts ongoing in Texas, as they relate to endangered species, has to do with Texas government efforts to find ways of allowing industry to continue it’s violations against the ESA by making people, the landowners, think they are getting a good deal, but in the end still lose their land and rights.

In Loyola’s piece, 99.99% has to do with benefiting large corporations, protection of habitat (more accurately known as theft of land and rights), and still screwing over the private landowner.

One thing to consider right up front is found in an opening paragraph by Loyola referencing the economic destruction of the spotted owl issue.

The decision caused a lot of pain and suffering for how much good it did, which turned out to be none at all. The northern spotted owl’s population continued dwindling because, as it turned out, the principal threat to its survival was apparently not habitat loss, but the spread of an invasive species: its cousin, the larger eastern barred owl.

Apparently? And herein lies the issue that angers many of us. Way back when, it was argued there was no good science to support claims being made by the environmentalists that loss of habitat was supposedly killing the spotted owl. Now that the environmentalists were successful in shutting down land, they now want to try something else claiming that “new science” has revealed something better.

The article in reference makes claims that this plan in Texas would solve the science issue because habitat exchanges would provide for scientists to use money, paid by corporations into the exchanges, to bribe landowners to let them go on their land and do research in order to better discover how much habitat is needed to protect certain species and whether or not private land would do the trick for the corporations. And then, they would screw over the private land owner. In addition, history of government corruption should teach us that the so-called private industry scientists would be nothing more than government bribed individuals continuing the bastardization of science for political purposes.

And this somehow would solve the “best available science” issue? I think not. Government regulation and politics destroys everything. What is being suggested is simply more government regulation dressed up with a bit of lipstick.

The author admits the ESA needs amending but thinks what needs to be done can be accomplished with utilizing Texas’s mitigation exchange programs. He even refers to, but does not recognize as such, the abuse by non governmental agencies, through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in forcing the USFWS to act on over 250 demands for action against threatened species. Knowing full well that the USFWS cannot act on all of these, places government money (that’s taxpayer money) into the pockets of these environmentalists. It has become their cash cow.

Government got involved in the wind industry when Obama and Congress opted to subsidize it. And now to protect their investment (not ours) they must issue an ITP in order to not slow up a failed energy system they must prop up for votes. People believing that the issuing of the ITP is wrong and suggesting government regulation can fix it, are insane – by definition.

I have long written that real amendments to the ESA and the EAJA can go a long way in curbing the abuses undertaken by greedy special interest groups, while at the same time actually doing something to protect those threatened and endangered species. Government subsidies amount to the spread of communism. The intent in the subsidies is to insure government control and interference. Until these changes are made, it is fool’s folly to think more regulation will make a difference to the individual.

And that lost difference is all by design.

Share

Wild Hogs Coming to Your Back Door Soon

It seems that little is or can be done about stopping the spread of feral swine throughout this country. I think part of the problem is that people don’t realize there exists a problem or that it will, more than likely, wind up in your back yard eventually if not all ready. I also think there’s a certain disconnect between the people and wild hogs mainly because too many people probably don’t understand where all the pork they eat comes from……other than the grocery store.

With an estimated population in the U.S. of anywhere between 4 and 8 million hogs, the question isn’t if but when will wild hogs come to my house and destroy my lawn and garden, tear down my fencing and kill my pets? Kill my pets? It would only be fitting for environmental groups to work to put a stop to the needless killing of wild pigs. No, I’m not kidding.

Frank Bruni of the New York Times, pens a lighthearted approach to the realities of the swine life. But he does ask where the environmentalists are on this topic due to the ecosystem destruction caused by these millions of wild hogs. Bruni does mention that these pigs are, “throwing the earth out of balance.” Being that he writes for the New York Times and is only repeating the garbage he was taught in school and from all his other environmentalists friends at the Times, is it really worth trying to educate him about the “balance of nature?”

Texas A&M University answers probably any question you might have about feral hogs.

One of the last places some might think of to find wild pigs is in a cold climate like Maine. Well, officially New York State has too many pigs already and according to Maine’s Downeast Magazine, there’s about a population of 500 wild piggies in New Hampshire. The magazine warns Maine residents that those pigs might cross the border. And then what?

But, isn’t it too late to worry about if, they come? Maine’s Kennebec Journal had a story four months ago about a “Eurasian wild boar” that was shot by a person trying to stop the wild pig from killing his domestic pig.

This article states that officials are “mystified by the presence of a wild boar.” Really? Maybe officials should visit the Texas A&M University web page that explains about where feral hogs came from.

The first pigs were brought into what is now the continental U.S. into Florida in 1539 by Hernando de Soto. Explorers used these pigs as a traveling food source. After wandering around the southeastern United States in search of gold, his exploration party brought 700 pigs into what would become Texas in 1542.

Oh, so that’s how it happened. I mean seriously. Mystified?

Share

Texas Man Threatens Lawsuit For the Stuffing of Two Asses

The use of the word ass to describe a donkey or a mule is Biblical. And I bring the Biblical aspect to this story because the subject of this article claims to have converted from being an atheist and animal rights activist to a “christian”.

But first, to put this entire inane topic into perspective, let me pass on an ass story of old. On a military base in Texas, two privates were given orders to go out in the corner of a field and dig a hole big enough to bury a donkey in. As the men got digging, they began discussing the donkey. As the men dug, they argued whether the animal was a donkey or a mule. Their debate reached the point where the two men were about to come to blows over it, when the base chaplain passed by where the two men were working. He heard the very loud arguing and stepped over to the edge of the hole and looked down in and interrupted the two men. “What on earth are you two men doing and what are you fighting about?”

One man said quickly, “Oh, we’re digging a donkey hole.” The other yelled, “No! It’s a mule hole!” To which the chaplain followed with a question, “What may I ask is a donkey hole and a mule hole?” Then the two men explained the reason they were there digging a hole; to bury a dead donkey in.

“But why the terrible arguing?” the chaplain asked. One man returns, “We were fighting over whether that donkey should be called a donkey or a mule!”

Being a chaplain, he took the opportunity to use Bible references to explain that God called the animal an ass and that according to his teachings, it should be called an ass.

Content, the two men went back to work digging and the chaplain left. A few minutes later, the base commander came walking by, stopped and asked the two men, “Are you digging a donkey hole?” To which one man quickly answered, “Not according to the chaplain! We’re digging an ass hole!”

According to Fox News34 in Lubbock, Texas, Patrick Greene, noted for being an atheist and animal rights activist, is threatening to sue the American Museum of Agriculture located in that city. The reason is because the museum had two old mules, destined for the slaughter house, euthanized to be stuffed and put on display in the museum shown pulling a wagon. Greene calls the action by the museum, “offensive and immoral, and also illegal”.

Greene also said, “They did it for the worst reason of all, for a display in the museum. That is an incredibly horrible reason to do it. So people can look and stare and gawk?”

Oddly enough, back in April of this year, the Huffington Post reported that Greene had seen the light……or maybe he just didn’t know if he was digging a donkey hole or an ass hole. Huffington said that once Greene had fought to have a Nativity scene removed in a Texas county because of his atheism but now had decided to convert to Christianity and to become a pastor.

The report said that after losing his job and getting into some financial difficulty, a Christian organization raised $400 to help him out. That’s what got him to thinking and prompted his so-called “conversion” to Christianity. Once “converted” he began rethinking his positions on evolution and animals. He told one reporter, “There’s been one lingering thought in the back of my head my entire life, and it’s one thought that I’ve never been able to reconcile, and that is the vast difference between all the animals and us.”

Well, evidently Mr. Greene hasn’t thought quite hard enough. I think he best return to the hole until he can determine the difference between a donkey and an ass.

However, the reader who sent me this information, also sent with it a few questions of which I am not in any position to answer, but other readers might have thoughts on them…… or even a snicker.

Did the mules get their own lawyers?
If not, what communal interest can a plaintiff assert?
Is this a sue and settle tactic similar to what the environmentalists do to avoid scrutiny of their lousy science?
Or,is this something that Saul Alinsky mentioned in his book Rules for Radicals in which the threat might be just as effective as the actual action taken?
(In this instance, getting a settlement when no court would order a settlement, might actually cause the threat to gain more than actually suing.)

Share

Special Court For Pets. What Possibly Could Go Wrong?

Hat tip to reader “James” for the link.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Please read and consider. The city of San Antonio, Texas has created a special court just to deal with pet cases. This is a function of the state’s court system, not a separate judicial entity. The special court has been functioning for 10 months and has collected $250,000 in fines.

Here is one example of a recent court case. A six-year-old boy went to school and told the school nurse that his dad’s chihuahua had bit him. The boys father was brought up on charges and a guilty finding resulted in a fine of $269.

Some probably will find not only the charge and fine ridiculous but the entire concept of the state creating a special court just to deal with pet issues beyond the scope of sensibility. Others will complain that animals are being either singled out for special treatment or singled out for special prosecution, along with the owners.

However, fear not! The city is considering creating special and crime-specific courts in order that judges can become “specialized” in a certain field of judicial expertise.

But the 10-month-old court is part of a larger trend in which cities are forming specialized tribunals to deal with distinct populations, such as drug addicts or the mentally ill. The goal is to allow judges to develop a deeper understanding of certain kinds of offenses, and better fashion appropriate punishments for those who commit them.

I repeat! What possibly could go wrong?

Share