Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Outdoor Life.

This week, as North America’s wildlife professionals gather in Louisville, Kentucky, for the annual meetings of The Wildlife Society, the question of who calls the shots in wildlife management will be a hot topic.

Last year’s Wildlife Society annual meeting, in Spokane, was defined by what some in the wildlife-management profession characterized as a takeover by animal-rights activists who generally feel left out of traditional wildlife management.

They’re not entirely wrong. Most state wildlife agencies are funded mainly by hunters, either through license sales or pass-through revenue from taxes on guns, bows, and ammunition. And while state fish and game departments have wide authority to manage butterflies, minnows, and songbirds, most manage primarily for catchable fish and huntable game.

The wildlife activists, who want state agencies to de-emphasize hunting and fishing in favor of more tolerance for carnivores and non-game species, are not politely asking to be included, as last year’s Wildlife Society meeting indicated. In many states, they’re using the political process to win gubernatorial appointments to fish and game commissions. Washington, where these animal-rights advocates now hold a majority of commission seats, has become the leading indicator of a transition away from agencies that cater mainly to hunters and anglers.

Colorado is quickly moving toward a similar model, with the recent appointment of three commissioners who represent constituents who may have never bought a hunting or fishing license.

I know someone from Colorado.  I can vouch for what he’s saying about Colorado hunting.

This is just great.  Now they’re coming for hunting!

All of you “We’re not voting our way out of this” guys may want to reconsider your position.  I have long said that politics is warfare, plain and simple, just done in another way.  If you don’t want to put in the effort to engage in the front lines of the warfare, when will you?

So, you may want to think about who your state is electing to the governor’s mansion.  It matters.  It matters to hunters and shooters.

After you are the one who orchestrated the nationwide shutdown, kept kids home from school, and marched that communist Fauci in front of the TV cameras for a year and failed to reign in the NIH and CDC.

And on top of that took the credit for rolling out an untested shot that causes blood clots and destroys the immune system. Yeah, you’ve got the nerve.

Survival Blog.

“Administration and character of Eutropius, A.D. 395-399:

The first events of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius are so intimately connected, that the rebellion of the Goths and the fall of Rufinus have already claimed a place in the history of the West. It has already been observed that Eutropius, one of the principal eunuchs of the palace of Constantinople, succeeded the haughty minister whose ruin he had accomplished and whose vices he soon imitated. Every order of the state bowed to the new favourite; and their tame and obsequious submission encouraged him to insult the laws, and, what is still more difficult and dangerous, the manners of his country. Under the weakest of the predecessors of Arcadius the reign of the eunuchs had been secret and almost invisible. They insinuated themselves into the confidence of the prince but their ostensible functions were confined to the menial service of the wardrobe and Imperial bedchamber. They might direct in a whisper the public counsels, and blast by their malicious suggestions the fame and fortunes of the most illustrious citizens; but they never presumed to stand forward in the front of empire, or to profane the public honours of the state. Eutropius was the first of his artificial sex who dared to assume the character of a Roman magistrate and general. Sometimes, in the presence of the blushing senate, he ascended the tribunal to pronounce judgment or to repeat elaborate harangues; and sometimes appeared on horseback, at the head of his troops, in the dress and armour of a hero. The disregard of custom and decency always betrays a weak and ill-regulated mind; nor does Eutropius seem to have compensated for the folly of the design by any superior merit or ability in the execution. His former habits of life had not introduced him to the study of the laws or the exercises of the field; his awkward and unsuccessful attempts provoked the secret contempt of the spectators; the Goths expressed their wish that such a general might always command the armies of Rome; and the name of the minister was branded with ridicule, more pernicious, perhaps, than hatred to a public character. The subjects of Arcadius were exasperated by the recollection that this deformed and decrepit eunuch, who so perversely mimicked the actions of a man, was born in the most abject conditions of servitude; that before he entered the Imperial palace he had been successively sold and purchased by an hundred masters, who had exhausted his youthful strength in every mean and infamous office, and at length dismissed him in his old age to freedom and poverty. While these disgraceful stories were circulated, and perhaps exaggerated, in private conversations, the vanity of the favourite was flattered with the most extraordinary honours. In the senate, in the capital, in the provinces, the statues of Eutropius were erected, in brass or marble, decorated with the symbols of his civil and military virtues, and inscribed with the pompous title of the third founder of Constantinople. He was promoted to the rank of patrician, which began to signify, in a popular and even legal acceptation, the father of the emperor: and the last year of the fourth century was polluted by the consulship of an eunuch and a slave. This strange and inexpiable prodigy awakened, however, the prejudices of the Romans. The effeminate consul was rejected by the West as an indelible stain to the annals of the republic; and without invoking the shades of Brutus and Camillus, the colleague of Eutropius, a learned and respectable magistrate, sufficiently represented the different maxims of the two administrations.”  – Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Chapter 32

Effeminate Eunuchs.  Does this sound as if it could be written about the current ruling caste of America today?

He poses some interesting questions, and I’d like to see this issue studied a bit by him or someone equally familiar with both constitutional and case law.

My own view is that simply putting a sign up at an entrance to so-called government property (like a park) isn’t reason enough to justify a search.  That’s not a so-called “administrative search.”  I assume and believe that for public places, the rules of “Terry Stop” still apply, i.e., there must be articulable reason for the search such as suspicion in the commission of a crime.

I’ve given this some thought too concerning stops and searches of hunters on public lands.  Almost every hunter is aware of his training, i.e., when you are approached by a DNR officer, put your weapon in a safe condition, be polite, and be prepared to have your privacy invaded.  He may and probably will demand to see your hunting license and examine your harvest.

But why?  What gives that DNR agent the right to do that?  The fact that they’re on “public land?”  Do the citizens not own the public land?  What’s the difference between public hunting land and a downtown sidewalk?  Do we allow cops to come up to us and frisk us, demand to identify us, and demand to search our belongings because we’re walking on a sidewalk “owned” by the state?  No, most states do not have stop and identify statutes, and besides, those are unconstitutional even if they exist.

Why does a DNR officer have the right to assume I don’t have a hunting license just because I’m hunting (that’s the assumption behind demanding to see my hunting license, right, that I don’t have a license)?  Why does the DNR officer have the right to force me to open the tailgate of my truck and examine my harvest?  Does he have evidence of a crime to make such invasive demands?  Without such evidence, or at least suspicion, does that search violate the fourth amendment?

I would claim that it does.  England had rules regulating hunting under the notion of the royal forest.  As of the 12th century, nearly a third of England’s land was designated “royal forest,” and only the king’s men and other nobility were allowed to hunt game there.

We don’t live in England.  We live in America.  We fought a war over things just like this.

I think this is pregnant ground to be tilled, and I’d like to see lawyers take this up with some offended hunter – perhaps all the way to the supreme court.

Daily Caller.

The Supreme Court rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a unanimous decision Thursday.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, brought by a couple prevented by the EPA from building a home on their own land near Priest Lake, Idaho because it contained wetlands, considered the scope of the agency’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which defines what “navigable waters” can be regulated under the CWA. Plaintiffs Chantell and Mike Sackett, who have spent 15 years fighting the agency’s rule in court, allege the EPA has overstepped the authority it was granted when Congress enacted the CWA in 1972—forcing them to stop construction on their land or face fines.

The Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, determining their land is not covered under the text of the CWA, which gives the EPA authority to regulate “navigable waters.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barett, that the EPA’s interpretation “provides little notice to landowners of their obligations under the CWA.” The Court held that the CWA applies to only wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” maintaining a “continuous surface connection.”

EPA restrictions on wetlands is similar to civil asset forfeiture.  It amounts to thievery.  It’s wrong and everybody knows it.

The opinion was “unanimous,” but the picture isn’t so rosy as you might suspect.

Though justices were united in their judgement, they maintained disagreements on definitions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in an opinion concurring in judgement that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, thought the majority went too far in its test for which wetlands are included.

“By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” he wrote.

Kagan similarly said in an opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson that the majority has appointed itself as “the national decision-maker on environmental policy” by choosing a test that “prevents the EPA from keeping our country’s waters clean by regulating adjacent wetlands.”

“The eight administrations since 1977 have maintained dramatically different views of how to regulate the environment, including under the Clean Water Act,” she wrote, noting some “promulgated very broad interpretations of adjacent wetlands.”

“Yet all of those eight different administrations have recognized as a matter of law that the Clean Water Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands means more than adjoining wetlands and also includes wetlands separated from covered waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like,” she wrote. “That consistency in interpretation is strong confirmation of the ordinary meaning of adjacent wetlands.”

So the other “justices” sided with the sensible ones, but they want all but the most obvious examples to be decided by the FedGov, with property owned by the same.

Thus, the Leviathan only got his hand slapped rather than smitten into ruin on the rocks like he should have been.

Interestingly, Mark Smith sees this as very important for gun owners.  See how this decision applies to the ATF and why lawyers will be citing it in the coming months.

Reason.

When local bureaucrats in Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized an elderly woman’s home over a small tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit, they likely had no idea they would set in motion a series of events that would cripple the practice known as “home equity theft” across the country.

Yet that’s what happened. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler’s condo over an overdue property tax bill, auctioned the home, and pocketed the proceeds in excess of what she actually owed.

Tyler, who is now 94 years old, purchased the Minneapolis-area condo in 1999. But a series of events, including a neighborhood shooting, prompted her to relocate to a retirement community in 2010, at which point it became difficult for her to pay both her new rent and the property taxes on her former home. She accrued a $2,300 tax bill, which turned into an approximately $15,000 bill after the government added on $13,000 in penalties, interest, and fees. Local officials then sold the home for $40,000—and kept the remaining $25,000.

Tyler spent years arguing that such a taking was unconstitutional. But despite the case appearing fairly black and white from the outset, she had no such luck in the lower courts. When her case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, its ruling was also unanimous—in favor of the government. “Where state law recognizes no property interest in surplus proceeds from a tax foreclosure-sale conducted after adequate notice to the owner, there is no unconstitutional taking,” wrote Judge Steven Colloton.

The Supreme Court forcefully overturned that decision today. “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”

At the heart of the case is the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” In explaining the justices’ decision, Roberts traced the spirit of the law back to the Magna Carta, then to English law, and ultimately to the States, buttressed by several Supreme Court precedents which, as Roberts wrote, “have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed.”

Tyler is far from the only victim of this practice. Home equity theft is legal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia, although today’s ruling should hamstring those forfeiture schemes.

Civil asset forfeiture is thievery and therefore sinful.  There is no other way to see it, and every individual, whether associated with the government or not, who has participated in or enabled such a scheme, should be ashamed, and will certainly face eternal punishment.  It’s an abomination that the Eighth Circuit found in favor of the state, and equally absurd that the Supreme Court took so long to take this head on and smash it to the ground in pieces.

This is in West Virginia, where John H. Bryan (aka, The Civil Rights Lawyer), has been a one-man wrecking crew for the corruption.  Here are the relevant documents.

But you know this sort of thing happens everywhere.  It’s just that John is good and persistent enough to root it out.

Republicans, or people who vote for them, are still, in a bizarre act of idolatrous religious faith, counting on national-level voting to change things. Meanwhile, the communists are tearing at the foundations with increasing success. If you feel you should vote, even knowing your government is thoroughly corrupted, then do it; we believe there is a Biblical case for that, but let the idea go that anybody but Christ can save us now.

First, your District Attorneys continue to be replaced by communist party adherents, faithful only to Moa’s little red book.

Secondly, as we’ve warned, the defund police movement in some cities is moving to phase two of their operation. They only want control of the national security apparatus with which to destroy you. **Warning, not a family-friendly link** Hard-core violent communists are training the police to be party enforcers, which means you, dear religiously Republican voters, are being targeted for genocide.

Thirdly, these religious Republican voters scoff at the leftist State’s and City’s policies of allowing rampant crime and homelessness, never understanding that it’s being done on purpose. Crime, along with national tax policy and immigration, has been designed to drive leftist constituents into the Red States, turning formerly quiet, friendly, and quaint small cities and towns into communist enclaves, one Uhaul truckload at a time.

Why can they read this post, understand it’s true, yet live and remain in their fantasy? Shamefully, the next national-level election will be no different. Those going through the various iterations of the grieving process for America today will once more put on their denial dunce hats and start looking for a national savior by pushing the R button on the machines that are pre-programmed with the results.

Your enemy is at war, and your faith in a foundation you know has already been destroyed is silly. Seriously, it’s like watching a Benny Hill skit, and you’re the object of the caricature. Please stop; you look foolish. National politics is an open failure for all the world to laugh at in derision, and your religious adherence is making it worse. Unless you have the money and a plan to conduct a counter-communist revolution, then today should be the day you end your fantasy. Rend your clothes, stomp up and down, flop on the floor and beat your fists as much as you must, get angry and scream, cry and wail, eat a bowl of ice cream in your PJs sobbing, but end it today, no more whining and no more denial. Your country needs you, not Washington but your real country; the people who know you and love you are counting on you.

Sorry for calling you names, but seriously, stop being dodo birds.

No more politics. I love the direction that TCJ is taking;  you need a plan, practical knowledge, friends, tools, and the right spirit for what’s coming. Every moment you spend on politics is time wasted you could be spending on praying, training the young, teaching yourself craftwork, making practical application of pioneer, homestead, or survival skills, family team building, firearms and self-defense training, sharing the Gospel, deepening commitments among local trusted allies, etc., etc., etc.

Be a self-sufficient Christian. Nothing is more subversive than self-reliance, declaring Christ is King.

UnHerd.

By 2003, the Bush administration was requesting $2 billion in annual budget for biodefence — a sum that, as the Los Angeles Times noted, exceeded the combined research budgets for breast cancer, lung cancer, stroke and tuberculosis. That year, Bush announced in his State of the Union address that he would propose a further $6 billion for the development and stockpiling of vaccines over the subsequent decade, in addition to baseline biodefence funding.

The money was essential, but transforming a core element of America’s national strategic defence was as much about restructuring the governmental and human aspects of biodefence as it was funding them. In the case of research-based bioweapons preparedness, Cheney’s masterstroke was to remove the fragmented biodefence research programmes from various departments, institutes and centres, and place them under the aegis of a single institute: the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led then, as now, by Anthony Fauci.

A 2003 NIAID article detailed what this shift meant for the relatively obscure public health agency: “In 2003, NIAID was assigned lead responsibility… for civilian biodefence research with a focus on research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infections diseases and radiation exposures. NIAID later assumed responsibility for coordinating the NIH-wide effort to develop medical countermeasures against threats to the civilian population.” While the statement is laden with references to “civilian research”, it included a crucial caveat that explains much about its role right through the Covid-19 pandemic: “Because new potentially deadly pathogens, such as avian influenza, may be naturally occurring as well as deliberately introduced by terrorists, NIAID’s biodefence research is integrated into its larger emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases portfolio.”

In other words, as far as NIAID was concerned, there was no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefence and scientific research. With the stroke of Cheney’s pen, all United States biodefence efforts, classified or unclassified, were placed under the aegis of Anthony Fauci. So important was this new command structure that a representative from the office of Scooter Libby, Cheney’s powerful chief of staff, was physically placed in NIAID headquarters in Washington during the transition to function as “a kind of political commissar” from the vice president’s office. This gave Fauci unparalleled access to not just Cheney, but President Bush, to whom he had an open channel.

Fauci now had a virtual carte blanche to not merely approve but design and run the kind of research projects he sought — and could do so with no oversight structure above him. Biodefence projects that formerly would have fallen under the authority of military or intelligence agencies were now under his direct supervision.

It’s this that explains one of the most bewildering irregularities surrounding Anthony Fauci: his compensation. As widely reported, Fauci is the highest paid member of the federal government, out-earning the President, four-star generals, senators, and Super Court Justices. His salary roughly doubled that of his own (nominal) boss, until recently, NIH director Francis Collins. Fauci’s giant pay packet can be traced back to 2004, the year after NIAID was made the country’s top biodefence authority agency. According to a report by Forbes, that year NIH deputy director Raynard S. Kingston wrote a formal memo to the agency’s director, Elias Zerhouni “to request that the current retention allowance [amount redacted] for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci be converted… in order to appropriately compensate him for the level of his responsibly in his current position of Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially as it relates to his work on biodefence research activities.”

Bush and Cheney gave us the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and the broken war in Afghanistan.  Now we learn they gave us the wicked high priest of science, Anthony Fauci – and by extension, Covid and all of its destruction of the economy of the nation.  And Cheney of course gave us his horrible daughter.

Can anyone think of anything good Bush and Cheney did for America?

Field & Stream does a good job outlining the history of the Open Fields Act, the history of this issue, and what’s at stake.  It’s in three parts.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

In part 3 the author writes the following.

There’s simply no getting around the fact that Hollingworth is a poacher, by definition. He has admitted to, been charged, and/or convicted of the following:

• Chasing coots with a boat and shooting them with lead shot.
• Shooting deer at night from a vehicle (though he insists his buddy pulled the trigger).
• Shooting cliff swallows.
• Shooting beavers at night on public land.
• Baiting migratory game birds.
• Shooting over the limit on ducks.

Hollingsworth told me that he believes that there should be some game laws—but he also said private-property owners should be able to shoot a deer or turkey any time of the year, so long as they use common sense and are shooting it to eat it, and that baiting waterfowl should be legal on private land, too, provided hunters adhere to the bag limits.

All of a sudden, I wasn’t so sympathetic.

That said, no matter how many past violations Hollingsworth has or how inexcusable they are, it is still fair to ask whether the wardens overstepped their bounds in this case. Did they go too far in planting the hidden trail camera? I think they did. And did they really need (as Hollingsworth describes it) to surround his home with multiple officers just to serve a warrant for a “stolen” trail camera? I suspect they didn’t.

Good grief.  Do you know how many bird species are included in the migratory bird act?  More than 800.  If a Woodpecker is tearing a tree apart on your property, and that tree, or group of trees, is (or are) necessary to prevent washes and fissures on your land, too bad.  You can’t kill it.  Chimney Finches or Chimney Swifts are protected.  If one gets into your chimney and dies for whatever reason, you have to live with the smell of death in your house because you didn’t drive it out of there before it died.

If a Killdeer nests in your gravel road, you can’t move it under Federal law.  I didn’t say not to kill Woodpeckers killing your trees.  I said that under federal law, you cannot do it.  These rules are stupid, concocted and promulgated by stupid and wicked men.

As for killing deer out of season, it would be nice for every man to be as well off as every other man, but that won’t happen in time and on earth.  Thus, some people just have to do what they have to do to feed their families.  I get the issue about modern game management techniques historically increasing herd size.  I really do.

But the creature isn’t above the creator.  And the creator gave man charge over the animal kingdom.  I am opposed to anything that gives government more power, because controlling men are always abusive.