September 22, 2019

A Government Action to Get Out The Apathetic Environmentalist Vote

Renaming these areas, mentioned below, the “Harry Reid Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” in November or December would be a nice touch and assure big bonuses for the BLM sycophants that concocted this travesty for their political bosses pandering for votes.

1. REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT
2. EMPOWER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (SHERIFFS, COMMISSIONERS, ETC.) and orient State government to be their protectors
3. REPEAL OR SERIOUSLY AMEND ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL/ANIMAL RIGHTS/UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAWS OF THE LAST 50 YEARS. They spawned all of this illegitimate power for federal bureaucrats to us to destroy Rural America.

4. Do #’s 1, 2 & 3 and the ability and willingness of most State governments to again assume their role of protecting us from tyranny, and to putting and keeping oppressive federal power abuse in the bottle like some evil genie will return faster than you can say:

“From Nixon to Obama, All the Presidents have tolerated and profited from this growing ‘RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’. It is perpetrated by urban radicals, extremist NGO’s, and the self-serving profiteering of federal and state bureaucrats and politicians. The time to stop it is NOW! If not now, the question is not WHEN? The answer is it will be TOO LATE!”

Jim Beers
31 October 2014

Share

Could Semantics Disarm America?

There is much ado about information that President Obama plans to bypass Congress and the American people in crafting a treaty, that’s a non treaty, with the United Nations on global warming. According to The New American report by Alex Newman, “The radical strategy primarily involves semantics and legal quackery: Instead of calling the controversial scheme a “treaty,” the White House is pursuing what it calls an international “accord.””

One would have to wonder how deeply the game playing of semantics would or could go. The U.S. Constitution, for as little as it applies to the citizens of the United States, says that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If semantics are used so President Obama can fulfill his puppet obligations of kow-towing to the United Nations on global warming, would his action legally become a “treaty?”

Should this happen, i.e. Congress refuses to stop the president and the Supreme Court agrees to recognize any such “accord” as a binding “treaty,” consider the consequences. They are too numerous to even fathom.

In keeping within the context of this website, then I would suspect next in line would be an “accord” to disarm America.

As I have said many times, the only last remaining deterrent to dictatorial tyranny in this country is the fact that millions of Americans own millions of guns. Disarm America and it’s all over.

Share

A Suggestion for Rural Americans

Guest post by James Beers:

If you are a rural American that:

– Realizes that you are being harmed in many ways by a central government environmental/animal rights apparatus.

– Is concerned about what lies ahead in your community and County for your children and grandchildren as jobs dwindle, grazing and logging are eliminated and hunting and fishing are being vilified and abolished.

– Sees the expansion of government ownership and easement-taking as the ultimate threat to voiding your property rights and jeopardizing your and your family’s future.

– Doesn’t know who to turn to as urban voting blocs, both nationally and within your state, work with national and state politicians to vacate rural America and turn it into a government-controlled enclave by the use of unjust laws and bureaucrat-empowerment of regulatory tightening for personal their gain.

– Is rightly afraid of the human safety, property damage, diseases and impacts on rural American life posed by the introduction, protection and sanctification of uncontrolled and unmanaged predators like grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions and coyotes.

– Understands how Wilderness Declarations, expanding government-controlled lands and government bureaucrats that are no more than radical activists with both a disdain for American Constitutional government and human hegemony in the world causes increasingly common catastrophic fires with increasing destruction of homes, communities and lives.

– Knows that federal bureaucrats from US Fish and Wildlife Service manipulating unjust laws like the Endangered Species Act for the benefit of themselves, friendly politician’s re-election and radical Un-American agendas; to the BLM invading a Nevada ranch with all the equipment and tactics of a US Ranger attack on an Afghan village; to the current revelation of USDA buying submachine guns for unstated purposes, are all matters for great public concern especially for rural Americans.

– Is anxious about how state fish and wildlife agencies are mirroring federal agencies’ hiring and staffing of radical employees that are deeply opposed to rural Americans and their way of life.

– Cannot understand how or why state fish and wildlife bureaucrats have become subcontractors for harmful federal policies and actions while increasingly not only ignoring the harms they are causing to rural residents and communities of their state but steadily aiding the federal bureaucrats in their destructive laws and policies.

I could go on here but I think I have made my point and stretched your patience sufficiently.

As an old bureaucrat writing and speaking on this matter for well over a decade, I believe rural Americans have only 3 choices.

1.) Continue hoping for the best like Oregon loggers and mill owners did; like Minnesota moose hunters did; like all the former grazing allotment holders did; like all the ex-sheep ranchers did; like the cattle rancher that committed suicide did; like the people killed and seriously injured by unmanaged and too-numerous predators did; like the thousands that have lost dogs to protected predators; and like current rural old folks and kids especially, living in rural America in the same sort of stress and fear common in primitive Asian societies where guns are prohibited and to quote Thomas Hobbes writing in Leviathan about a similarly out-of-control central government in England in 1651 described the resulting life of the people as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and a “war of every man against every man.”

2.) Tinker around the edges of the destruction by “increasing participation”. “transparency”, and understanding why our destruction is “good” and “beneficial.” Tolerating teachers indoctrinating our children; politicians that worsen and refuse to better our condition; and bureaucrats that abuse us and treat our families, our communities and our way of life with haughtiness and contempt. This is similar to current approaches to immigration, Islamic interfaces and current handling of Constitutional rights from freedom of speech and religion to the right to bear arms that are all only digging the holes deeper and giving a false sense of hope as things get worse and worse.

3.) Begin taking concrete actions to reverse, not amend or modify, the political and bureaucratic actions that are strangling rural America.

Numbers’ 1 and 2 above are not acceptable. They lead to either:

– Living as slaves under tyrants and dictators as all Constitutional “guarantees” are eliminated and all power over all things resides in the most powerful factions and individuals that seize and hold power. Or…

– Armed conflicts between government and the governed, and the “war of every man against every man” that Hobbes wrote about and our Founding Fathers fought in addition to British Troops during The Revolutionary War.

If you want to begin taking back the rural America we built and enjoyed until what I write of here took hold, I submit the following for your consideration.

Neither federal nor state government (politicians & bureaucrats) will be reformed without solid pressure, just as they have been perverted by radical agendas promising rewards from radicals and the Treasury to politicians seeking re-election and bureaucrats seeking their own enrichment. Where is this pressure for reform to come from?

Either it will come from the military ( a horrible thing to contemplate) or it must come from Local Governments strongly advocating for Local Communities and Counties.

Just as strong Local governments are the venue for reforming state governments gone astray, so too are strong state governments the venue for reforming an out-of-control federal government.

But, the fact is that Local governments and their revenues have been prime targets for these radical agendas of destruction right from the get-go. Their presence and their voice have purposely dwindled as their revenue dwindled from economic destruction of rural areas and the growth of federal rural restrictions with state tolerance and the expansion of federal ownership and land controls.

The first step is to elect Local politicians that will fight for you at the state level. That means reasserting Local power in your state Capital.

– Overhaul your state agencies that are harming you and make structural changes in the State Legislature to balance rural representation. Consider that the US Constitution originally designated TWO US Senators for EACH STATE to balance tiny Rhode Island and Delaware with Leviathan’s California and Texas. Something similar is needed to balance the “800 lb. gorilla” effect of the Chicagoes and Manhattans in the states they occupy.

– Enact and enforce Ordinances and Regulations that require the state government to side with you against unjust federal intrusions. For instance, require a County Permit to introduce or release any wild animal in YOUR County. That means federal or state bureaucrats. If your state government will not recognize its role as protecting and nurturing you and opposing federal abuses that you will not tolerate then Reform it with all the enthusiasm and determination of those that took it from you in recent years!

– Elect good Local politicians to state offices. Then elect good state politicians to federal offices with an agenda of repealing and amending unjust laws and reducing the power and agendas of out-of-control federal bureaucracies.

– Repeal the 17th Amendment that, in 1913, changed the way US Senators were appointed (from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof”): this began the steady and incremental loss of States Rights under the 10th Amendment that underpinned the growth of the problems facing us today. While the Senate and its awesome powers (Ratify Treaties, Confirm Judges and high Appointees as well as passing on all Legislation and Budgets) were designed to Represent Each State; today they represent and advocate for the changing and variable (mostly urban) voting coalitions that elect and re-elect them AND NOT THE STATE they reputedly “represent.”

So, here is my suggestion on getting started. Since I am on old wildlife guy, this concerns wildlife but I challenge you ag guys and timber guys and road guys and rural businessmen to come up with some similar beginning at the Local level.

Enact an Ordinance that establishes that you (the Local Level) are the Primary Authority for the presence, management and control of wild and domestic animals in Your County. You will determine if, what, where and how many cougars, coyotes, free-roaming dogs, black bears, foxes, raccoons, etc. will be tolerated in the County. You will set the seasons, conditions, limits, methods and circumstances that said animals can or will be taken. You will provide a County where cattle or hunting or fishing or recreation or all in some mix is what is desired by residents for their own good in their own communities. You will prohibit the state to release cougars or coyotes or bears from urban areas where urban residents think that wild animals can be managed in line with human necessities by live-trapping and kicking them out on some rural County road in the dead of night. (This latter phenomenon is going on all over the country as I write.) You will require a permit from any federal, state or local entity releasing wild animals and that application will have a written permission of any landowner in the vicinity of the release. You will prohibit certain species like grizzly bears or wolves from becoming established in the County and authorize landowners, hunters, ranchers, County Animal Control and others to shoot, trap, snare, etc. any arriving in the County or live trap them for the agency responsible who then pays a fine the first time after proving the animal has certain vaccinations and the second time the animal is euthanized.

The state government should back you up in this. The state game warden and the state wildlife budget should recognize, protect and nurture the Counties in these regards. The state wildlife managers and wildlife control agents should enable Counties to create Local environments for the Local people.

Now, if you think there won’t be extreme blowback on this, you are mistaken. The state is “superior”, “it won’t work”, “they don’t know what they are doing”, etc., etc. will be screamed everywhere. Massachusetts’ Constitution, California’s laws, Illinois’ regulations will all suddenly take on all the importance of The Ten Commandments as the Capitals are filled with squeals. This is EXACTLY what must eventually take place in Washington when a majority of the states get squared away and real reform of the federal government begins.

Finally, as this is “pooh-poohed” by state and (behind the scenes) federal government; try this. File a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request with your state government and the federal government for a summary of the circumstances of all live-trapped wild animal in your state for the past (3?, 5?) years AND the LOCATION of where they were released. You will be surprised whether you live in Oregon, Illinois or Connecticut .

Now I personally expect that just like the numbers of wolves or the numbers of elk/moose in wolf country, some states may, like their federal “partners, lie about this since they believe they are truly unaccountable but, some will be rightly fearful that being misleading or lying or destroying records could possibly wind up in a court before a judge that does not see them as above the law.

Maybe this could be accomplished with the help of some legal aid or law advocate firm or organization or maybe even some firm interested in American Civil Liberties? Maybe some of the elk/deer/hunting/fishing/Unlimited/Forevers/Sporting Goods Stores, et al might possibly see how this affects them and drag themselves away from the federal buffets long enough to help legally and financially? Maybe even ranchers and farmers and loggers and rural businesses might even discern a stake in such a move to begin getting things back on the right path?

The following cartoon was drawn over 250 years ago before there was ever a Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or a United States of America. Just as Ben Franklin was addressing the colonies to unite and address British tyranny peaceably at that time, so too must rural Americans either come together and prevail or the consequences will be far more awful than anyone will admit. This idea for bottom-up reform starting with Local government that I am suggesting here is made in the same spirit that Ben Franklin addressed those colonists centuries ago.

JoinorDie

Join, or Die by Benjamin Franklin was recycled to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule

Join, or Die by a well-known cartoon by Ben Franklin appeared in the :Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule. It is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist in America. It shows a snake cut into eighths (New England was treated as one) with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the 13 American colonies or region.

Jim Beers
24 May 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

When THE LAW is the Problem

LawProvided by James Beers:

Yesterday I wrote TWO QUESTIONS, an article that appears [on this website]. An astute and well-informed reader in Europe wrote me the following response to that article:

By American law ..

I : = B
2 : = B

In other words, pups born as the result of the mating of a wolf and a dog are legally unprotected dogs and not protected wolves. This is true. Additionally, anyone that shoots, traps, injures, harasses such a DOG is not bound by any law concerning wolves but only those state and local Laws and Ordinances concerned with DOGS. This is also true.

However, I submit that today neither of these things are really true.

We throw around these reputedly “scientific”-based terms like wolf, dog and coyote like they are elephants, lemurs and kangaroos. While these latter THREE Species don’t look alike or eat the same things, they are absolutely, inexorably and basically different because THEY CANNOT MATE AND PRODUCE VIABLE (fully capable of and able to reproduce their own kind) OFFSPRING. Once upon a time for centuries and until very recently this capability to produce viable offspring was the defining characteristic determining, what was a distinct group of animals we defined as a Species. That is why mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey that are not capable of producing viable offspring) are NOT a species, for instance. This definition of Species, while biological, has served us all well for centuries in myriad ways as we domesticated animals and managed wild animals for the benefit and protection of our families, communities and societies.

Enter the wolf and federal wolf laws and regulations.

In the late 1960’s, in the midst of great social chaos in the United States federal jurisdiction and authority over wild animals took major authorities from state governments under the auspices of “saving” endangered Species. This new federal authority steadily grew into previously unimaginable federal power to take and control private property; destroy formerly viable businesses; close public lands to any use or management or renewable natural resources; stop construction projects like dams and irrigation districts; eradicate valuable game animal herds; destroy local economies and communities; and even destroy the lives, families and livelihoods of rural men and women protecting their property and families from radically destructive government actions.

Early-on federal seizure and protection of remnant wolves as an endangered “Species” in Minnesota and subsequent releases of wolves in the Upper Rocky Mountains in a National Park and on an Indian Reservation (two locations that share the unique distinction of always having been outside and beyond state or surrounding local jurisdictions and their authority). Long story short, absent the federal “Endangered” Species Act, absent the absolute central government power it spawned largely due to federal bureaucrats writing and amending federal regulations to serve their own purposes plus the inattention of the public and state governments busy “Hoovering”- up (i.e. vacuuming or sucking-up) federal dollars with “strings” – were it not for all this – there would only be a remnant wolf population (and moose to hunt once again) in Minnesota and other than a few straggling wolves along the western Canadian/US border NO WOLVES IN THE LOWER 48 STATES today.

But, what is a wolf? Wolves breed with and produce viable offspring with all dogs, all coyotes PRODUCING VIABLE OFFSPRING. The genes of these three animals are in reality a stew of all manner of interbreeding from numerous wild encounters that have gone on for eons to the intentional crossbreeding by men to obtain more fearsome animals or animals with more stamina to do work like pulling sleds or any of a countless number of other human intentions lost in the mists of time.

Thus we in the Lower 48 States find ourselves fighting for our lives, families and livelihoods against a hostile (against humans) government with the outcome often hinging on points like:

– Was that a wolf you killed?

– Was it a wolf that killed your sheep?

– Is that a wolf hanging out where your kids play or catch the bus?

– Was that a wolf you were shooting at?

– Is that a wolf den with a wolf bitch and wolf pups “out back” of the pasture?

– What is your expertise to say it was not a wolf?

– You should have exercised due caution.

– Do you just shoot at anything?

– How could you have placed a snare like that where wolves were present?

– How do YOU tell a wolf from a German Shepherd or a large coyote?

– On what do you base YOUR expertise?

Ah, but you say “we have DNA Analysis” to identify wolves. HMMM, who sets the “Wolf” DNA Standard: The “Dog” DNA Standard: the “Coyote” DNA Standard? Is it the same “scientists” either employed by or funded in large measure by the federal government? “’It’ is a dog when ‘it’ has 30% of this and a coyote when it has 62% or more of that and a wolf when we say so”! Really?

DNA Analysis is perfectly suited for individual identification as shown daily by criminal investigators. But there is a great difference between tying someone’s DNA to the DNA found at a crime scene and the ARBITRARY standard that there is a genetic line and on one side we will call them wolves and on the other a dog and on yet another it is a coyote. Those are value judgments made by bureaucrats and the “scientists” they employ AFTER the fact of all these disputes arising from the forced introduction and protection of wolves. When such determinations determine prosecutions and great harm to citizens they are reminiscent of 19th century phrenologists describing the “criminal type”, or acolytes of Margaret Sanger describing the mentally-deficient that should be killed, or 1930’s racial “experts” describing those with Jewish “blood”.

None of that DNA specificity about wolves (in all their, like dogs, endless VARIETIES) is published in any regulation. That they can and do often look alike is undeniable. It is as if citizens were told that some deer had a gene resistant to Chronic Wasting Disease and they are totally protected but all the other deer, without the gene, should be killed to save the deer from the disease. The fact that they all looked alike and could only be identified after being killed was the shooter’s problem and if a warden found you with a deer THAT HAD THE GENE; you would be prosecuted, fined, imprisoned and have much of your property seized by the government. Distinguishing such deer is no different than relying on arbitrary government DNA Standards to identify real wolves! Such use of DNA findings is in fact (I speak here as an old state and federal law enforcement officer) DISCRETIONARY.

Forget that you thought it was a coyote or that you were sure it was a large dog that killed your dog or livestock. If I was the state or federal enforcer you wound up with and I was interested in:

– Ingratiating myself with environmental/animal rights zealots running my agency.

– Making an example of you to put the fear of (Gaia?) in others.

– Helping to rid the area of hunters, grazers, loggers, etc.

– Making a name for myself with a prosecution that engenders lots of publicity.

– Simply interested in proving how tough I am to both the public and coworkers.

– Getting even with you for some reason.

– Impressing everyone with how important these nutty laws are.

– Needing a complex investigation to justify overtime or Premium Pay.

– Forging a case with “Precedence Value” to immortalize myself.

– Etcetera.

I could be your worst nightmare.

Look no further than the recent “raid” on the cattle operation of Mr. Bundy in Nevada by such government enforcers, without a court order, that resulted in the shooting of valuable livestock and confrontations with citizens fomented by enforcers armed to the teeth ostensibly protecting a tortoise that nearby government-funded solar panel farms are harming far worse than any cattle. Those enforcers are “doing their job”, being rewarded for a “good job” and are planning their next moves to further oppress citizens as I write. (“Next time we will first use bean bags by the camera and then loudspeakers and then we rush them if they don’t disperse and then…!”)

Wolves, dogs and coyotes that appear for all intents and purposes as the same animal are either: A.) Wolves completely protected at all times, B.) Coyotes that are unprotected and may be killed at any time, or C.) Dogs that are either 1.) someone’s private property and thus covered by property laws and the owners ire, or 2.) free-roaming dogs covered or not by local ordinances and/or state laws. Just as the cattle shooters are apparently unrestrained as they go about their “duties”; so too are the enforcers arresting and prosecuting citizens that kill or bother wolves that may or may not look to every American just like a large coyote or dog.

Utilizing the discretion inherent in this genetic mishmash, I would seize the animal in question or describe it if it got away as a wolf. As I built the case, I would document your background, interview people that had dealt with you like environmentalists and anti-gun folks and game wardens and other enforcers. I would copy and enter as evidence everything you ever said or wrote about wolves or government benevolence. Only if the DNA Analysis was absolute (there is no such wolf or dog or coyote) would I stop if I wanted to go forward. I would document how you thought “it looked like” a large/small, light/dark canid (i.e. wolf/dog/coyote?). How you didn’t know about how tails and ears indicate one animal or the other. I would document how you mistakenly guessed the weight of the animal or how you misread the tracks around your dead dog and how you didn’t know the official government distances distinguishing the tracks of a wolf and the tracks of a coyote. I would catch all the times you said things like “that looked like” something you “should have” or “shouldn’t have” done .I will have a field day because the laws and regulations give the government all the aces and the citizens all the deuces.

In addition to watching ambulance chasers descending on you like vampires when the sun goes down, I would “shop” for the “professor” or DNA “Analyst” (just like litigious modern environmental Americans “shop” for Washington DC or 9th Circuit judges and courts to get judges that prefer them) to get DNA “Results” that will send you like Diogenes in search of “your own” “Analyst” or “Professor” that the court and jury will look down on as inferior to the august government “expert witness”. The public will admire me and begin to look on you as they do that guy that owns (owned?) the Los Angeles Clippers with the “girlfriend” about the age of his grandkids. Whether I win or lose: you lose and I win! Why? Because, it is all based on a bad (un-Constitutional and oppressive) law with all manner of hidden agendas and loopholes put there over time by self-serving bureaucrats that keep harmful federal and state politicians in power with illusions about animals.

So is “B.” the right answer to both questions?

1.) Is the wolf bitch birthing pups from eggs fertilized by a German Shepherd, a coyote and a Yellow Lab (yes litters can have more than one Papa) giving birth to wolves or dogs? Despite what a lawyer or bureaucrat tells you about how DNA “proves” and the Endangered Species Act says they are unprotected dogs: believe them at your own risk. Those offspring are what a court and a judge says they are. Go no further than the next generation when the half-Lab is subsequently bred by a wolf and the Lab genes join the genes of ancient semi-wild dogs from Indian Villages, peasant cottages in Medieval France and caves in prehistoric Europe and Asia in the genetic soup of the “wolf” critter you are charged with “taking”.

2.) Is the person that kills or harasses such offspring of a wolf/dog cross a felon or a hero? See #1. If the pup grows up looking just like his mother’s brother in the Little Red Riding Hood story, I would not hold out a hope or expectation of some benevolent enforcer or government bureaucracy with a scintilla of concern about your welfare if you are caught in a web of prosecution wherein the outcome revolves on what a jury thinks about the charges against you in light of claims about what the DNA “proves.”

I must admit I think the answer to both questions is “it depends.”

Like tyrannies down through the ages, our fate once more has come to “depend” on bad laws that exist only to mask the way the whims of the powerful are imposed on the rest of us day in and day out; in all we must do and all we cannot do.

Share

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Revolution

Share

Ain’t It A Bit Too Late?

Nullify

Share

Tyranny For the Good of The Victims

Denying that one lives under tyranny is blind ignorance.

CSLewis

Share

Obama Says No More Eating Foods That Cause Global Warming

Obama Administration to Insert Global Warming Activism into Dietary Guidelines Mandated by Congress

Climate Change Activists to Meet Food Police at Closed-Door Meeting March 14

New York, NY / Washington DC – At a closed-door meeting to take place March 14, the Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services plan to update the nation’s “dietary guidelines” — a document with significant repercussions for food stamps, military and school meals programs — to include anti-global warming activism.

In an article, “Obama administration pollutes guidelines for healthy eating with unhealthy ideologies,” published Sunday by the Washington Examiner, National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier says environmental activists within the U.S. government plan to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”

In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”

No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.'”

What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.

“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,'” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”

The full Washington Examiner article can be read here.

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, MSNBC, 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.

Washington-based Amy Ridenour, founding CEO of the National Center and currently co-CEO with her husband, David Ridenour, has been interviewed on television or radio thousands of times, and had her op-ed published in newspapers thousands of times, on nearly every major public policy issue since the National Center’s 1982 founding. Newspapers running her op-eds within the year include the Denver Post, Providence Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Arizona Daily Star, Boston Herald, Deseret News, Duluth News Tribune, Orange County Register, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Omaha World-Herald and many others. She discusses issues on Twitter at @AmyRidenour.
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, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two 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.

Share

Who Will Start Civil Unrest in This Country?

It’s no secret. I have stated for years now that there has never been any let up in attempts to disarm America. I have emphatically stated that the last bastion against liberty and thwarting complete tyranny are the millions of armed citizens and the millions of arms they possess. Is the posturing in Connecticut what will trigger revolt? And who will pull the trigger first?

Here’s what we know. Connecticut passed a law that required certain guns and magazines, legally owned by some Connecticut citizens, forcing them to either turn those weapons over to the government or apply for registration. It was reported that as many as 350,000 citizens told the Connecticut Legislature to stick it by refusing to comply with what many believed to be an unconstitutional law.

We know that a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police said he was “the master” and was prepared to go door to door and confiscate those weapons and magazines. But will they? He said he was sworn to uphold the constitution. But he didn’t say which one.

But the rhetoric is being ramped up, especially on the so-called Second Amendment supporters’ side. Be careful who you listen to and who you decide to follow. What you might get isn’t what you thought you might be getting. There are insiders looking to incite violence.

This website has examples of the rhetoric ramping-up. It also has links to other sites I planned to link to but you can find those links in this one article.

It is my belief that certain “government” authorities, more truthfully probably useful idiots and plants within the gun rights groups under the direction of the Council on Foreign Relations and or their operatives, who want civil unrest. Obama is prepared for civil unrest. I believe he wants civil unrest. I believe he wants to become the Tsar, the dictator and will have the excuse he needs and others want to lock em and load em and go door to do, killing you and your Second Amendment freedom. Oh, and did I mention he’ll take your guns?

If any U.S. citizens expect to have the full support of all Second Amendment, liberty loving Americans, they better let government make the first move.

Look before you leap!

Share

Beyond The Obvious In Connecticut’s Refusal to Register Guns

DisarmamentSo long as the citizens of this country willfully remain no more than participants in a maneuver by government officials, in cahoots with controlled media outlets, they play into the hands of the global ruling elite that want Americans disarmed. Some may ask how can I say that following what, on the surface, appears to be pure American defiance against those making laws contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

The subject at hand is the act of Connecticut gun owners who refused to obey the Constitution State’s (that’s a joke isn’t it?) law that required all people who own “assault rifles/weapons” to register them by January 1, 2014. Not very many people did.

Let’s try to examine this action on a level much deeper than hip, hip, hooray for those defiant gun owners.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Perhaps the Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, has been abused, tread on, altered, demonized, misinterpreted and used against the citizens of the United States as a means by the government to display its power over the people and the usurpation of rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, stated that it was the finding of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the people, that is the lawful citizens of this nation, have the right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms. He did not affirm that this right was without restrictions. One can therefore look at Heller v. District of Columbia as either an affirmation of a individual’s right to keep and bear arms, or an affirmation that even though the Second Amendment provides that right to an individual, government can make limitations against it, including prohibiting the sale and purchase of guns as we have already seen.

The global ruling establishment wants the United States of America to become unarmed. I have repeatedly written that, in my opinion, the fact that millions upon millions of Americans possess millions upon millions of arms and ammunition, it is the last deterrent toward tyranny and despotic rule. You might be saying then why am I not so enthused about the actions shown by Connecticut gun owners?

Actually, I am enthused, as I believe that any government that willfully and without regard, attempts to destroy the rights of people guaranteed by God and our constitution, should be defied. After all, isn’t that how America became separated from Great Britain and the despotic King George III?

There is more to this than a simple matter of defying the Connecticut government and that’s the part that bothers me.

Let’s start with the term “assault rifle.” This term was coined deliberately and with reason behind it. Just the word assault, because of years of brainwashing by our education institutions and media manipulations, have programmed humans to react to “assault weapon” as something to greatly fear; as though it had a will of its own, walking about seeking whom it may devour.

That’s only one small word that is part of a bigger plan to disarm America.

Who believes that the United States Government, or any other government or power, is going to simply one day demand that all Americans turn over their weapons and ammunition? Voluntarily, this will never happen. There needs to be a justifiable reason (justifiable by government interpretation) to forcefully take those weapons away and/or by some foreign invasion of this country in which Americans, even while putting up a fight, would eventually cede their weapons.

We have debated this issue for decades and some even recognize the so-called “incremental” attack on the Second Amendment through fear mongering, lying, cheating, stealing, the calling for “reasonable restrictions,” demands of background checks, gun registrations, permits, etc. And how has that effort gone?

There has been some success, mainly through those too gutless to stand up for the protection of rights and too ignorant, blinded by the media’s onslaught of lies and fabricated “data,” to not side with those calling for “reasonable” restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Consider some of those “reasonable” restrictions that we have so willingly given up:

1.)Restrictions of what kinds of “arms” and ammo we are allowed to keep and bear, quantities and size.
2.)Giving in and requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This being nothing more than in part a registration of gun ownership.
3.)Gun registration with the purchase of any gun through a licensed dealer.
4.)Background checks.

Do we have these same “reasonable” restrictions (remember reasonable is by someone’s definition and/or interpretation) on religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, privacy, search and seizure, etc, to the same degree?

In Connecticut, we see that evidently the majority of gun owners said requiring them to come forward and register their “assault” weapons was too much and are defying that law. So what is any of this accomplishing?

First off, the two actions, one by government and one by the citizenry, has played nicely into the hands of the media – a tool of the global ruling establishment. They now have an issue in which they can effectively play one side of the people against the other side – divide and conquer.

Government erred (or did they?) in crafting an unconstitutional law that they knew was unenforceable, or should have known. Gun owners, I suppose, if I may give them this much credit, knew the law was unenforceable and knew it went further against their rights than they were willing to give up. We now have polar opposites warring with each other. A despotic, tyrannical government forcing itself upon the people who place equal value on rights as do the tyrants in the Connecticut legislature on its power. A perfect storm.

This is where the media steps in, by order of their controllers, to play one side against the other. As an example, we read in the Hartford Courant, that the editorial staff wants law officials in Connecticut to find all those who refused to bow down to the whims of a tyrannical government, located and locked up.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced. (emphasis added)

Evidently the Hartford Courant thinks Connecticut’s new law is enforceable, or do they really? Notice that the newspaper demands the state exercise an authority, one that evidently is believed to have been given along with background checks. Recall, if you can, that when all the hoopla was about strengthening background checks and having them all run through one federal database, the promise was that background check information would not be retained and used against those seeking to purchase a gun. So much for government honesty and those in the media who do the bidding for the government.

J.D. Tuccille of Reason.com says:

Laws rely, almost entirely, on voluntary compliance, with enforcement efforts sufficient for a tiny, noncompliant minority. If a large number of people to whom a law applies find the law repugnant—and a majority of a group, consisting of scores of thousands of people, constitutes a large number—than the law is unenforceable, no matter how many politicians and newspaper editorial writers think it’s a swell idea. Governments that try enforcement, anyway, will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.

If Tuccille’s statement above is true, then isn’t it logical to ask, beyond of the obvious and shallow debate of who’s right, if the law that Connecticut passed was intended to create, “a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy?” Of course it was. And the media makes sure the ball is sent back and forth from one side to the other to perpetuate the “brutality” and ensure the “declining legitimacy” of the government, their authority and unreasonable rules of law.

The people now, more than ever, see government as brutal, overreaching, unfair, tyrannical in nature, etc. This, of course, by design. This isn’t relegated to just Second Amendment issues. No way! Pick any topic and any issue. They are ALL controversial, pitting one side against the other, either government against the people or people against the people. In this case it’s government against the people.

Connecticut gun owners’ actions will, more than likely, spread to other states, other gun owners. This, I also believe, is part of the bigger plan. If the global ruling powers can begin small and escalate the issue to encompass a majority of American gun owners, to get them angrier and more pitted against the government and their overreach and stripping away at constitutional rights, the more easily they can implement their plan of disarmament.

Earlier I stated that the United States Government and all those that control that government, have not had great success in taking bold action to disarm Americans or through the chipping away of Second Amendment rights; at least not in a timely enough fashion. I also said that the last deterrent to dictatorial rule, i.e. a One World Government, fascist in nature, controlling the existing New World Order, is Americans and their guns. They must be disarmed and the only way this is going to happen is by force.

If the media is successful enough, they will incite rioting, at any time, for any cause. If the action of Connecticut gun owners appears effective enough, other states will willfully begin to outwardly defy government laws aimed at gun ownership. The goal here by the global powers is to get American gun owners and anyone else who will follow, including those paid for and planted to create violence, to take to the streets in protest, the United States Government is well prepared to declare a national emergency.

All the years since Obama has been in office, he has, through legal law making and executive action, set the stage so that when a national emergency is declared, he becomes dictator. Then, guns will be forcefully taken from Americans.

The other option I spoke of is invasion by another country or countries, of which I am not ready to discuss.

Now is the time to be watchful and see how effective what happened in Connecticut will be in motivating others to defy the authority of strong-armed government. Will it end up in street violence? National emergency? Time will tell.

Share