June 4, 2023

“Keystone Species”: The Nauseating Narrative of Convenience

In a rebuttal to an article written by George Smith, outdoor writer and activist, Karen Coker, head of Wildwatch in Maine wrote: “…aggressive beaver trapping prevents them from fulfilling their unique role as a keystone species.”

Like everything in this post-normal world, where real science has been tossed to the side swapped for Romance Biology and driven by special interest, the use of the term “keystone species” seems to have become one of convenience. In the public relations battle, it has become common place to take up the same strategies as the Vatican in determining that the end always justifies the means. In this case, say anything in order to promote your agenda. The agenda is, therefore, “keystone.”

But don’t be mistaken, this strategy is not relegated to only one political side.

To label any species “keystone” denotes that it is top shelf, that without it, serious consequences may befall an “ecosystem” (whatever that is). If you Google “keystone species” you get this: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.”

When personal and political agendas are at stake, any object can and does become a keystone species of utmost importance. Pick one, pick any. When attempting to approach any discussion or activism driven by agendas and politics, rather than an honest scientific approach (and please, enough of stating that you are the holder of real science already), invoking “keystone” tells a reader that the recipient of such a designation must be extremely important. However, what is always left out is the whole picture. It is always presented, as is written in this rebuttal, only in part. The part to supports the agenda.

The author further writes: “The rich wetlands beavers create support thousands of other wildlife species.” This is true….partly. The “rich” wetlands beavers create also destroys thousands of other wildlife species and that is not being considered. Some beavers are a good thing for our “ecosystems” (whatever those are) and more does not necessarily mean better. In fact, it becomes worse as beavers can be extremely destructive.

In Google’s definition of “keystone species” it says that if the species were removed, “the ecosystem would change drastically.” Some definition. Change, in this context, can fit anyone’s agenda. Political agendas and activist organizations are founded on the driving principle that a pet project is top shelf and will cause “drastic” changes. In one’s desire to protect beavers, or whatever the pet animal of the week is, removal of that species, to any degree, presents “drastic change,” and that change is always of the worse kind…in their minds.

One would like to think that wildlife managers understand the need to limit how many “rich wetlands” the countryside is inundated with. And that they also understand that these “rich wetlands” to some are an oasis and to others, death valley.

So enough of the “keystone” crap! For years I have listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry fall all over themselves, labeling their pet project to promote fundraising as “keystone,” “apex” and vitally essential to the salvation of the ecosystem (whatever that is).

While groups take up this strategy, void of actual and honest scientific processes, they also expose their ignorant hypocrisies and double standards. Case in point: Coker makes sure she gets in her jabs by bringing in names that are sure to rile up the masses on her left – NRA, Sportsman’s Alliance and “other powerful special interest groups.” She laments the idea that Smith and any member of these “powerful special interest groups” might “rally and unite their constituents with the message,” while she is rallying and uniting her “powerful special interest groups” with a “message” against what she claims to be Smith’s.

There’s nothing new here and it is all quite nauseating. Coker repeats, often, that her totalitarian (because it aims to force social change on others) special interest group’s appointment to life is, “giving ethical and ecological considerations a much larger role in wildlife policy and decision-making.” Golly, this sounds almost exactly like the Environmentalist-Leftist-Totalitarian purpose “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Several years ago Environmentalism vowed that it would change the way we discuss and handle wildlife management. What they refused to tell the public that this change was void of the real scientific process. It is now all about social tolerances and the forcing of one group of totalitarian’s ideology onto others who have no interest in it.

Wildwatch Maine wants to place animals on a plane with people, giving them ethical and ecological considerations in order to be more humanlike. They want to control wildlife policy and decision-making void of science and driven by Romance Biology and ideology.



Maine Governor Says 3 Ballot Questions are “Unconstitutional”

According the Maine Wire, in an article written by Governor Paul LePage, he states: “As Governor, I am sworn to uphold the Constitutions of Maine and the United States of America. I take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my suit pocket every day.

In Maine, I believe three of the questions on the November ballot are unconstitutional. If they pass it will be impossible to uphold my oath of office.”<<<Read More>>>

To claim something to be “unconstitutional,” isn’t it a bit of an over-used excuse? One might even argue it a cliche. I am no constitutional scholar, and even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn once, I can’t say that qualifies me to be an expert. I am, however, perhaps a bit more versed in constitutional history than your average Joe – no offense intended to Joes everywhere.

I would assume that to declare that a law or proposed law to be “unconstitutional” it must be directly in opposition to the constitution of the state being referenced – in this case Maine, or the Federal Government. The author also says that he believes some of the ballot questions, if passed, would violate the U.S. Constitution as well. Would it?

First, a fundamental error often made by lay people, like myself, is lack of understanding between what might be considered “unconstitutional” and what could be “without precedence.”

In the case of the Maine Governor’s claim of the unconstitutionality of three ballot questions, I suppose we must take a look at the Maine Constitution first. Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, in part reads: “The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.” Reads like a lawyer’s dream come true doesn’t it?

In this day and age of immorality, where wrong is now right, where bad is good, the end justifies the means, etc. what and who determines what is “reasonable” and “not repugnant?” Surely you understand that the Maine Constitution gives the Legislature the power and authority to “make and establish” any and all laws they deem in the best interest of the Maine (P)?people.

But such a delegation of power is not just found in the Maine Constitution. The U.S. Constitution states the same. In Article I, Section 8, we read: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Read that one a few times.

Is it not appropriate to question whether such constitutional statements give the Congress of the United States, and in this case, the state of Maine, authority to create and establish any law(s) they deem within the “reasonable,” “necessary,” and “proper” within the limiting (or not limiting) terms of the sections of the constitution?

If, in Maine, Question 3 is in violation of the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 16, “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”, then perhaps the petition for citizen referral process is faulty by allowing “unconstitutional” proposals to find their way to a public vote. Cannot the Maine Legislature, upon acknowledgement that Question 3 violates Article I, Section 16, veto the law should it pass? Or does Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, of the Maine Constitution and U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, have legislative power over any and all other laws if deemed necessary by a partisan legislature?

But constitutional proclamations are not the only law of the land. Precedence and Policy, especially in this day and age of corrupt politics, certainly disregards any constitutional guidelines or regulations. We regularly are witness to the establishment of “Policy” with each successive administration voted into office.

Many of us recall when Speaker of the U.S. House was asked if the newly passed “Obamacare” was constitutional, her reply was “you’re kidding right?” Not that I think Nancy Pelosi is actually intelligent enough to understand what she was saying beyond her own ignorance, can there really be any questioning a passage of a law, that many of us do think is “unconstitutional” when the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government can operate under Article I, Section 8. With such authority, Congress can enact any law they well please, with perhaps some push back from the people to deal with. This push back only matters when it vote gathering time.

If there is any hope of fighting against those proposed laws, it is through the battle against Precedence and Policy and the creation of your own precedence and policy, if there is such a thing.

In Maine’s case, and the argument offered by the governor, it is my opinion that, via the referendum process, for what it’s worth, Question 3 goes beyond whether it’s constitutional or not and as such presents a poor argument against the proposal. While in this country Precedence and Policy have altered the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and in this case the State of Maine’s Right to Bear Arms, argument should be made about, not only the absolute destruction of an inalienable right, but that in Maine, there is no precedence or policy that dismantles the “never shall be questioned” aspect of Article I, Section 16. In addition, it should be vehemently pointed out that in the most recent Second Amendment voting in Maine, voters opted to begin tearing down the obstacles that destroy the liberty of self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, by passing a, so-called, Constitutional Carry law, in which Maine people, a plurality, wanted to be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to subject themselves to the strong arm of the Federal and State governments.

Now that’s precedence! Unconstitutional is a dead argument.




Changing the ESA by POLICY Circumventing Legislative Process

DATE: MARCH 15, 2016

While private property owners were vehemently protesting the EPA’s expansion of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries (collectively “FWS”) were bit-by-bit expanding the federal government’s overreach on private property rights and federal grazing
permits through the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). This expansion is embodied in the release of four separate final rules and two final policies that the FWS admits will result in listing more species and expanding designated critical habitat.

In order to understand the expansiveness of the new policies and regulations, a short discussion of the previous regulations may help. Prior to the Obama changes, a species was listed as threatened or endangered based upon the “best scientific and commercial data available.”1 With regard to species that are potentially threatened or endangered “throughout a significant portion of its range” but not ALL of the species’ range, only those species within that “significant portion of the range” are listed, not all species throughout the entire range.

1 This discussion only includes requirements to which there have
been changes in the last four years.

Once the listing was completed, the FWS is mandated to designate critical habitat. Critical habitat is generally habitat upon which the species depends for survival. Importantly critical habitat can include both private and/or federal land and water. Critical habitat is to be based upon the “best scientific and commercial data available” and is to include the “primary constituent elements” (“PCEs”) for the species. PCEs are the elements the species needs for breeding, feeding and sheltering. Final critical habitat
designations are to be published with legal descriptions so that private landowners would know whether their private property or water was within or outside designated boundaries. Critical habitat designations are also made with consideration of the economic impacts. Under the ESA, although the FWS cannot consider the economic impacts of listing a species, all other economic impacts are to be considered when designating critical habitat, and if the economic impacts in an area are too great, the area could be excluded as critical habitat as long as the exclusion did not cause extinction of the species.

With regard to the critical habitat designation itself, critical habitat determinations were made in two stages. First, the FWS considers the currently occupied habitat and determine if that habitat (1) contains the PCEs for the species and (2) is sufficient for protection of the species. Second, the FWS looks at the unoccupied habitat for the species and makes the same determinations, i.e., (1) whether areas of unoccupied habitat contain the necessary PCEs and (2) if including this additional land or water as critical
habitat was necessary for protection of the species. The FWS then considers whether the economic costs of including some of the areas are so high, that the areas should be excluded from the critical habitat designation. In simplest terms, the FWS would weigh or balance the benefits of designation of certain
areas of critical habitat against the regulatory burdens and economic costs of designation, and could exclude discreet areas from a critical habitat designation so long as exclusion did not cause species extinction. This was called the “exclusion analysis.”

Starting with a new 2012 rule and extending to the 2015 rules and policy, those considerations have all changed, and in fact the FWS has admitted that the new rules will result in more land and water being included in critical habitat designations. The first major change is the inclusion of “the principals of conservation biology” as part of the “best scientific and commercial data available.” Conservation biology was not created until the 1980s and has been described by some scientists as “agenda-driven” or “goaloriented” biology. See Final Rule, Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat, February 11, 2016.

Second, the new Obama policy has changed regarding a listing species “throughout a significant portion of its range.” Now rather than listing species within the range where the problem lies, all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered. See Final Policy, Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range,” July 1, 2014.

Third, based upon the principals of conservation biology, including indirect or circumstantial information, critical habitat designations will be greatly expanded. Under the new regulations, the FWS will initially consider designation of both occupied and unoccupied habitat, including habitat with POTENTIAL PCEs. In other words, not only is the FWS considering habitat that is or may be used by the species, the FWS will consider habitat that may develop PCEs sometime in the future. There is no time limit on when such
future development of PCEs will occur, or what types of events have to occur so that the habitat will develop PCEs. The FWS will then look outside occupied and unoccupied habitat to decide if the habitat will develop PCEs in the future and should be designated as critical habitat now. The FWS has determined that critical habitat can include temporary or periodic habitat, ephemeral habitat, potential habitat and migratory habitat, even if that habitat is currently unusable by the species. See Final Rule, Implementing Changes to Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat, February 11, 2016.

Fourth the FWS has also determined that it will no longer publish the text or legal descriptions or GIS coordinates for critical habitat, rather it will only publish maps of the critical habitat designation. Given the small size of the Federal Register, I do not think this will adequately notify landowners whether their private property is included or excluded from a critical habitat designation. See Final Rule, “Revised Implementing Regulations for Requirements to Publish Textual Description of Boundaries of Critical Habitat,” May 1, 2012.

Fifth, the FWS has significantly limited what economic impacts are considered as part of the critical habitat designation. According to a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, although the economic impacts are not to be considered as part of the listing process, once a species was listed, if the FWS could not determine whether the economic impact came from listing OR critical habitat, the cost should be included in the economic analysis. In other words, only those costs that were solely based on listing were excluded from the economic analysis. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court took the opposite view
and determined that only economic costs that were SOLELY attributable to critical habitat designations were to be included. Rather than requesting the U.S. Supreme Court make a consistent ruling among the courts, the FWS simply recognized this circuit split for almost 15 years. However, on August 28, 2013, the FWS issued a final rule that determined that the Ninth Circuit Court was “correct,” and regulatorily determined that ONLY economic costs attributable SOLELY to the critical habitat designation would be analyzed. This rule substantially reduces the determination of the cost of critical habitat designation because the FWS can claim that almost all costs are based on the listing of the species because if not for the listing, there would be no need for critical habitat. See Final Rule, Revisions to the Regulations for Impact Analysis of Critical Habitat, August 28, 2013.

Sixth, the FWS has determined that while completing the economic analysis is mandatory, the consideration of whether habitat should be excluded based on economic considerations is discretionary. In other words, under the new policy, the FWS is no longer required to consider whether areas should be
excluded from critical habitat designation based upon economic costs and burdens. See Final Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, February 11, 2016.

The problem with these new rules is what it means if private property (or federal lands) are designated as critical habitat or the designated habitat only has the potential to develop PCEs. Even if the species is not present in the designated critical habitat, a “take” of a species can occur throug “adverse modification of critical habitat.” For private land, that may include stopping stream diversions because the water is needed in downstream critical habitat for a fish species, or that haying practices (such as cutting of invasive species to protect hay fields) are stopped because it will prevent the area from developing PCEs in the future that may support a species. It could include stopping someone from putting on fertilizer or doing other crop management on a farm field because of a concern with runoff into downstream designated habitat. Designation of an area as critical habitat (even if that area does not contain PCEs now) will absolutely require more federal permitting (i.e. section 7 consultation) for things like crop plans, or conservation plans or anything else requiring a federal permit. In fact, one of the new regulations issued by Obama concludes that “adverse modification of critical habitat” can include “alteration of the quantity or quality” of habitat that precludes or “significantly delays” the capacity of the habitat to develop PCEs over time. See Final Rule, “Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat,” February 11, 2016.

While the agriculture community raised a huge alarm over the “waters of the U.S.,” the FWS was quietly implementing these new rules, in a piecemeal manner, without a lot of fanfare. Honestly I think these new habitat rules will have as great or greater impact on the private lands and federal land permits as does the Ditch Rule and I would hope that the outcry from the agriculture community, private property advocates, and our Congressional delegations would be as great.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce proposed revisions to our Mitigation Policy, which has guided Service recommendations on mitigating the adverse impacts of land and water developments on fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats since 1981. The revisions are motivated by changes in conservation challenges and practices since 1981, including accelerating loss of habitats, effects of climate change, and advances in conservation science. The revised policy provides a framework for applying a landscape-scale approach to achieve, through application of the mitigation hierarchy, a net gain in conservation outcomes, or at a minimum, no net loss of resources and their values, services, and functions resulting from proposed actions. The primary intent of the policy is to apply mitigation in a strategic manner that ensures an effective linkage with conservation strategies at appropriate landscape scales. We request comments, information, and recommendations from governmental agencies, Indian Tribes, the scientific community, industry groups, environmental interest groups, and any other interested parties.<<<Read More>>>


Wolves Become Increasingly Dogs

I wanted to share with readers part of an email that I received written by Dr. Valerius Geist. His email was in part about policies that exist in dealing with and the perpetuation of wolves, particularly in “settled” landscapes, i.e. forcing wolves to live in areas inhabited by humans.

Recently many of us read an article about how “evolution” had created a “new” canine species – a mixture of wolf, coyote and domestic dog. It now appears the “buzz” is about wild dogs interbreeding, with no knowledge or understanding as to the new behavior of the cross-bred wild dog.

Odd isn’t it that such topics become popular in the media when there’s an agenda to be promoted.

Many of us, for years, have been clamoring to get people to understand that the policies of wolf and coyote protection were doing more harm to the actual canine species than the unnecessary and political act of protecting them is accomplishing. The call for scientific management and control over wolves, immediately is responded to by ignorant wolf advocates that we are wolf haters. They can’t even see that what I and many others have been calling for for years has been for the interest of the preservation of the species as a wild wolf and not a Heinz-57 wild, mongrel mutt, worthless to anybody accept those who find it a useful tools to stop land and resource access.

I think Dr. Geist puts it accurately and to the point when he said:

“In a nutshell the wolf conservation policies in Europe, but also cutesy your Fish and Wildlife Service, are a disservice to conservation, and a brutal disservice. I have made my views plain in Europe, that these policies have nothing to do with science and even less with nature conservation. Their effect is to not only do bitter damage to land-use we depend on for sustenance, but also to exterminate the wolf genetically as a species. In settled landscapes, wolves become increasingly dogs. Moreover, there is here another fallacy to contend with: yes, wolves and dogs are very similar genetically. However, they are vastly different organisms. Ask those that have studied both! They should never be included in the same specie designation. Here we deal with another remarkable ignorance, namely the assumption the equal genes means equal organism. This is a fallacy. Humans and chimps are exceedingly similar genetically, but would you give passports and marriage licenses to chimps? Pigs and hippos are very similar genetically to whales, but you do not do much for whale conservation by multiplying pigs! And the destruction of the wolf genome is nothing theoretical, not with western coyote, gray and eastern wolf and dogs flowing together into the worthless mongrel called coy wolf – or even worse, eastern coyote. Those foolish enough to celebrate it as “newly evolved species” do insult to evolution, and may not have noticed that this destroys both, America’s “big wolf” and the “little wolf”! Some triumph in conservation!”

The policies of animal protection worldwide are a reflection of the perverse animal insanity that pervades the people of the world.


Know Your Enemy: Attack of the NGOs

Dollar-Ase-270x300*Editor’s Comment* – Of the many, many items I have read and researched over the years about Agenda 21, and now Agenda 2030, the following article if perhaps one of the better basic learning lessons of how “policy” is derived – emphasis on basic. (Note: The development of “policy” has become the foundation of law in this nation. Each administration develops its own “policy.” Policy is implemented throughout all departments and practiced as the policy directs. In time, “policy” becomes law. We all need to learn and understand this basic concept.)

I have not read, nor followed Tom DeWeese, and so perhaps this piece is intended to be a beginning step toward educating people about how  the global power structure exists and is exercised.

I do not agree completely with what is written, but as I and others have pointed out, it’s a starting point.

DeWeese describes quite well how “ideas” are brought into the system for developing plans, conventions, policy, laws and treaties but comes up short of a more specific description of where those of influence with the “ideas” come from. They are not pulled out of thin air and very few participants to United Nations meetings have the mental capacity to devise such ideas. (Sorry, but they don’t. If they did, I wonder if they would even be there.)

It’s easy to say that NGOs and nation governments, along with the United Nations, develop policy and then work toward getting that policy applied to nations through laws and/or treaties. It’s not some kind of magical happenstance. It’s far more complex as well as expertly hidden from the view of anyone caring enough to investigate at a deeper level. Few are and therefore it makes the job of preventing exposure of corrupt governments that much easier.

By the time Average Joe in Small Town, America hears words, ideas, policies, conventions, laws and treaties, what they receive are well-crafted words that sound too good to be true. None are wise to what is really taking place – due in part to a well-crafted propagandizing/mind controlled education system.

Each of the “members” who come to these tables of discussion with “ideas” are sent by the Global Power Structure and introduced to NGO representatives, as well as government departments and their representatives, etc. Not unlike the Delphi Technique, the Ruling Establishment creates the “ideas” and agenda. Agents bring those to meetings and they get “introduced” and are discussed. Because the departments are rigged, the agenda passes and the new policy returns to nations where certain members already knew what was coming back. It’s all part of a very big membership that is heavily infiltrated into every aspect of everyone’s lives throughout the world.

DeWeese alludes to the fact that all of this effort is “leading” us toward global governance. I’m afraid the “leading” has passed behind us now and is mostly present, at least at some level, in our lives today. Few notice or even pay attention.

It is a rigged system and the administrators of that rigged system use NGOs, state and local governments and their representatives as useful idiots to carry out their fascist plans through totalitarian efforts.

I suggest reading the following linked-to article but remember, it is not 100% accurate – little ever is and by far is not even remotely close to being a complete look at any power structure that is devising Agenda 2030 policy.

Put in simple street language, the procedure really amounts to a collection of NGOs, bureaucrats and government officials, all working together toward a predetermined outcome. They have met together in meetings, written policy statements based on international agreements, which they helped to create and now they are about to impose laws and regulations that will have dire effects on people’s lives and national economies. Yet, with barely a twinge of conscience they move forward with the policy, saying nothing. No one objects. It’s understood. Everyone goes along. For this is a barbaric procedure that insures their desired outcome without the ugliness of bloodshed, or even debate. It is the procedure used to advance the radical, global environmental agenda.

Read the Deweese Report – Know Your Enemy: Attack of the NGOs


Executive Order — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People

*Editor’s Note* – All emboldening is mine as well as added [ ]s.


– – – – – – –


A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people. [it’s actually the reverse of this]

Where Federal policies have been designed to reflect behavioral science insights, they have substantially improved[destroyed] outcomes for the individuals, families, communities, and businesses those policies serve. For example, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in retirement savings plans have made it easier to save for the future, and have helped Americans accumulate billions of dollars in additional retirement savings. [benefits banking] Similarly, streamlining the application process for Federal financial aid has made college more financially accessible for millions of students.

To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government [oxymoron], behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. [This actually tells the whole story. The purpose of a “low-carbon” economy is for scarcity and repression/depression. Thus everything suggested here is the exact opposite of reality.]

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Behavioral Science Insights Policy Directive.

(a) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) are encouraged to:

(i) identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness;

(ii) develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights;

(iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government as necessary to achieve the goals of this directive; and

(iv) strengthen agency relationships with the research community to better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences.

(b) In implementing the policy directives in section (a), agencies shall:

(i) identify opportunities to help qualifying individuals, families, communities, and businesses access public programs and benefits by, as appropriate, streamlining processes that may otherwise limit or delay participation — for example, removing administrative hurdles, shortening wait times, and simplifying forms;

(ii) improve how information is presented to consumers, borrowers, program beneficiaries, and other individuals, whether as directly conveyed by the agency, or in setting standards for the presentation of information, by considering how the content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals, as appropriate;

(iii) identify programs that offer choices and carefully consider how the presentation and structure of those choices, including the order, number, and arrangement of options, can most effectively promote public welfare, as appropriate, giving particular consideration to the selection and setting of default options; and

(iv) review elements of their policies and programs that are designed to encourage or make it easier for Americans to take specific actions, such as saving for retirement or completing education programs. In doing so, agencies shall consider how the timing, frequency, presentation, and labeling of benefits, taxes, subsidies, and other incentives can more effectively and efficiently promote those actions, as appropriate. Particular attention should be paid to opportunities to use nonfinancial incentives.

(c) For policies with a regulatory component, agencies are encouraged to combine this behavioral science insights policy directive with their ongoing review of existing significant regulations to identify and reduce regulatory burdens, as appropriate and consistent with Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens).

Sec. 2. Implementation of the Behavioral Science Insights Policy Directive. (a) The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and chaired by the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, shall provide agencies with advice and policy guidance to help them execute the policy objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, as appropriate.

(b) The NSTC shall release a yearly report summarizing agency implementation of section 1 of this order each year until 2019. Member agencies of the SBST are expected to contribute to this report.

(c) To help execute the policy directive set forth in section 1 of this order, the Chair of the SBST shall, within 45 days of the date of this order and thereafter as necessary, issue guidance to assist agencies in implementing this order.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


September 15, 2015.

This could all be easily reduced to a few words: The government will create policy while making you think you are participating. Those policies are created by the government through Behavioral Science Insights, and are used to manipulation the responses by the citizen-subjects.


How Systems Get Tired

*Editor’s Note* – Fernandez does and excellent job of capturing the essence of precedence. Precedence mostly trumps any thoughts of constitutional law and has for many, many years. What any tyrant(s) are allowed to get away with, becomes precedence. Precedence in lawmaking is derived from Policy. People pay little or no attention to each administrations Policy, when they should be because Policy becomes law.

Fernandez lays out the realities of the inevitable sudden collapse. 

One of the arguments for the impossibility of an event is lack of previous failure. ‘It never failed before and thus can never fail ever’.  The Washington Post’s editorial board invokes a variant of this logic to refute Donald Trump’s border policy, arguing there are so many illegal immigrants it is too expensive to deport them all, leaving no alternative but to accept more.  Besides, America is still standing so what can be the harm in admitting more? The same argument is used to justify other policies.

Source: How Systems Get Tired | Belmont Club


Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy


On October 13, 2011, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on the nexus of science and policy related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1. The purpose of the hearing is to highlight the combination of science and policy decisions that are made under the ESA. Numerous judicial disputes over
ESA-related actions highlight the challenges in weighing best available science against other policy considerations, often under short deadlines. Congress has frequently considered changes to the ESA as a whole, and has also enacted species-specific ESA legislation, most recently with 2011 legislation concerning the grey
wolf. 2

Although the ESA is designed to protect species, its application is most visible when federally imposed plans to protect and recover a species restrict the actions of private citizens and other entities. For example, landowners may not be able to use their property in a manner they had planned and farmers may not be able to use as much of a river’s water as they need. Since takings claims are rarely successful, the science used to make ESA decisions is critical. <<<Read and Download Entire Report>>>


Does Policy Dictate Law or Law Dictate Policy

Pretend for a moment that the United States, in which we live, is governed by a constitution; one in which most Americans have been taught actually exists and once existed. Now that that is straight, consider.

It was recently announced, quietly, that the White House Office of Administration and the Executive Office, were formally placing in the Federal Register a “Final Rule” that would exempt those offices from the Freedom of Information Access Act (FOIA) law. The Summary reads:<<<All of it HERE>>>

SUMMARY: The Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, is removing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations related to the status of records created and maintained by the Executive Office of the President. This action is being taken in order to align Office of Administration policy with well-settled legal interpretations of the Office of Administration’s status under Federal law and Executive Orders, including the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and Executive Order 13526. The Office of Administration, as an entity whose sole function is to advise and assist the President of the United States, is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act of 1974, nor does its implementation of Executive Order 13526 affect members of the public. Accordingly, the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations to be removed are without legal effect.[emboldening added]

I think what we have here is a good example of how policy dictates law. There was never a “law” that exempted the White House from complying with FOIA. They just didn’t do it. Bush was even bolder and extended his noncompliance. Obama, moreso. The reason? Each president set their own “policy.” The Courts then recognized the “policy” and in certain court rulings made it clear that “policy” was law. Policy and precedent establishes tyrannical law.

To make sure that this “policy,” never debated and acted upon by Congress or the voting public, remained in effect, the White House simply recorded it in the Federal Register…as “settled policy”; I suppose not so much unlike the “settled science” of climate change.

Some people ignore and/or dismiss executive actions and announcements of “policy,” not understanding the ramifications that can follow. Here’s just one example.