THE SUN IS RISING AGAIN OVER A FREE AMERICA

By Ron Ewart
President, National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright August 21, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Only on very rare occasions do the American people rise up, as they are doing now. Today, they are grow increasingly outraged over the unconscionable spending of our money, the nationalization of health care, banks and businesses, unwarranted billion-dollar bailouts, irrational cap and trade legislation that threatens to derail our economy, the fraud that is man-caused global warming, amnesty, education, medical and safety-net benefits for illegal aliens, picking winners and losers, edging towards the one-world-order and the unprecedented take over by the federal government of the public "indoctrination" system and the food, land, water and energy production in the United States. It may be one of the largest power grabs by our government in the entire history of America and it is triggering a massive uprising, as well it should.

It has long been believed that there truly is a "silent majority" in America. These are the good folks who want to live their lives independently, responsibly, in the pursuit of their perception of happiness, but with little to no interference from government. As government interference in their lives has multiplied, they find that they can no longer ignore it.
The current national health care debate, that threatens to take over almost every aspect of every citizen's life if the legislation is passed, has been the catalyst for every-day Americans to express their objections to EVERYTHING that government is doing and they are expressing those objections with force and vehemence. So far, the town hall meeting has been the current venue for this outrage, but it is sure to expand to other, even more public venues in the near future. In fact, a massive rally of tens of thousands of concerned Americans is already scheduled in Washington DC for September 12th, 2009. Boston-style tea parties are springing up throughout the land with regularity. No, these are not unruly mobs being directed by high-up operatives in the Republican party, as has been alleged by the left. These are real people with no political stripes, that are concerned about the loss of their freedom and liberty.
Many politicians have been caught off guard and can't understand why the anger is being manifested so aggressively, and worse, so publicly. To say that they are getting an "earful" by otherwise mostly calm, cool and normally inattentive Americans, barely describes the situation.
But opposition to unpopular actions by government can be infectious and millions of Americans are being infected by a new call to patriotism and a return to the principles of freedom, liberty and our constitution, that is uniquely American. Those that speak out and are heard, mirror what millions of other quiet ones strongly believe. If Obama and the rest of the liberal crowd in Washington DC and elsewhere in America, don't back off and soon, the "movement" has all the earmarks of a national, full-fledged peaceful rebellion. It is our firm desire that it stays peaceful.
However, the egos and inflexible, socialist agendas of our current rulers will not be deterred and they will continue on this path to destruction, until it explodes in their faces. And explode it will. No! We don't mean "explode" literally. The window into the minds of the liberal left have been fully exposed for all Americans to see and they are showing little tolerance for it. This was hardly the "change" they had expected from the "Omnipotent One" and his little Chicago elves.
We can only hope that this is not a short-lived flash in the pan event and that all Americans will wake up to their responsibility as the "Consent of the Governed". For if they do not keep up a constant pressure on the inmates that run this asylum, the inmates will keep coming back time after time, as Americans drift back into apathy and inattention.
If the American people do not rise up in a peaceful rebellion now, eventually, the national and international money changers and power brokers will realize their goal of world domination, where national boundaries are blurred, sovereignty is just a word, multiculturalism is the new paradigm, political correctness is mandatory, socialism and a police state is the accepted form of government, mediocrity will be rampant and freedom and liberty will be a long-lost memory in those who once knew freedom, but no longer have a voice, because they will have long-since, died off.
Many of these issues raised here are described in a new book by this author. If you have enjoyed his articles, essays and reports over the last five years, you will definitely enjoy "The Sun is Rising Again Over a Free America". This isn't manufactured "hope", it is real and we can take heart in it. Check it out at http://www.narlo.org/sun.html.

SWINE FLU VACCINATIONS

Swine flu vaccinations are a matter of personal pro-choice, not government mandate!
Brought to you by Good Neighbor Law Contributing Educators:
John Maulsby DVM, and Taylor H. Haynes M.D.
____________________________________________
A personal testimony - from Dr. Taylor H. Haynes, M.D.

The experience that I had with the swine flu vaccine was in the late seventies early eighties.
I will not take the swine flu shot as I've seen it cause Guillain-Barre'. This form of peripheral polyneuritis - characterized by pain and weakness and sometimes paralysis of the limbs, and can severely debilitate and bring fatal neurologic disorder. Patients suffer loss of use of muscles and muscle wasting. When this condition effects the muscles that breathe for us, death occurs.
My advice is to maintain the best health with a balanced diet coupled with exercise and rest.If one gets the flu, bed rest and as much clear liquid fluids as is possible - - is still the best plan...and one I personally follow.
I will be happy to visit with anyone regards this matter.
Thank you,
Taylor H. Haynes M.D.
rangebeef@aol.com
_______________________________________________
A study recommended by Dr. John Maulsby, DVM

Swine Flu is NOT the Problem -- It is the Vaccine that May Harm or Kill You Urgent information to protect yourself and your loved ones … get informed before the swine flu vaccine craze comes to your town.

A Good Neighbor Law note: Swine flu vaccination should never become a government mandate. This is a pro-choice matter; for whether you decide to get a swine flu vaccination for yourself or your child should remain as personal as any other medical decision.
www.GoodNeighborLaw.com
To educate and empower people regarding their rights and responsibilities toward their land and neighbors, through accurate information sharing
__________________________________________________
COMMENTS:
__________________________________________________

Thank you Very interesting. I was in Taos camping with a man who years ago got the flu shot and lost feeling in his right side and almost died. My father is an MD and when the flu shot first hit the scene, he wouldn't let us get it!!!!! It is loaded with a host of unknowns and at best, a host of really bad stuff. Does it work? For some yes. Having said that, this swine flu vaccine looks spooky to me. Here we have more government run, moneymaking snake oil. Make no mistake that the pharmaceutical companies and our government are ne'er do well bed-fellows. I would suggest staying healthy, wise and aware. ThanksHugh
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
_________________________________________________
Rec'd note from my friend Jan in WI... this is what she said regarding the Swine Flu vaccinations...
mom's uncle got Guillain Barre from Swine flu shot - I won't be getting one...... and nobody can make me. :) Jan

PROFESSORS AND CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS

Dear Professor Williams: The Providence Journal kindly forwarded the letter you sent me, regarding my recent article in the ProJo. You obviously feel strongly about global warming and energy issues. I hope you will also feel there is a need for discussion and debate, in your classrooms and public forums – as a basic constitutional right … and the foundation of a free and informed citizenry. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that you (a college chemistry professor with a deep interest in climate issues) aren’t aware of the many climate, meteorology and other experts who disagree with manmade climate crisis claims. Those I know on a first-name basis include Tim Ball, Bob Carter, John Christy, Richard Courtney, Piers Corbyn, Joe D’Aleo, Bill Gray, Craig Idso, Richard Keen, David Legates, Dick Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Harrison Schmitt, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, George Taylor and Anthony Watts. All are honorable, honest, dedicated professionals, who have devoted many years to studying climate issues and trying to raise public awareness about them. The US Senate has published a report listing over 700 climatologists who challenge manmade global warming fears. Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers, provides in-depth bios and discussions of their views. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a list of 31,000 people with bachelor, master’s and PhD degrees in natural sciences, who likewise disagree with claims that humans and carbon dioxide are causing a climate disaster. A group of 60 German scientists recently issued an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel challenging manmade global warming fears. The Leipzig Declaration, a 2008 letter from Canadian scientists and other documents provide further examples. On the other side of the ledger, three of the most prominent advocates of human-caused climate disaster don’t even have science backgrounds. Rajenda Pachauri is an economist and railroad engineer; Yvo de Boer is a social worker; and Al Gore took just two college science courses, getting a C in one and a D in the other, according to the Washington Post. As to peer-reviewed publications contesting climate alarmism, you can find a few on Arctic ice conditions here – and get numerous others by going online to sites like WattsUpWithThat; contacting some of the scientists I just mentioned; reading Solomon’s book and the new NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report; or just use google to find dozens, or even hundreds of studies. You can find the “sham report” at http://www.blogger.com/ – and sharp critiques of it posted on http://www.blogger.com/ and Roger Pielke’s website. As to my professional status, I studied geology, ecology and environmental law, and have been doing energy and climate policy work for 15 years – as an analyst, writer and educator. I am not and never have been a lobbyist. ExxonMobil did give money to organizations where I’ve worked but doesn’t now, and gave a significant portion of that money for anti-malaria work. Ironically, the $23-million total that Exxon gave to think tanks for energy, environment, climate and disease work between 1989 and 2009 is a mere 1/3,400 of the $79 billion that the US government alone has given to scientists, bureaucrats and activists for global warming work since 1989, the vast majority of it to support research and reports that support manmade crisis claims. If $23 million is enough to “buy” the expertise of skeptics, one shudders to think what $79 billion would do. As you are a college professor, I am truly disappointed that you would engage almost solely in ad hominem attacks on me, and that you seem to be poorly versed in the wide range of studies that have been and continue to be conducted on climate change. As carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, global average temperatures have been declining, hurricanes are not increasing, evidence for a manmade crisis has been increasingly challenged, and the role of natural forces in recent warming and cooling has become increasingly clear and accepted. I’m sure you know that Al Gore collects a six-figure honorarium every time he speaks, while refusing to debate anyone or even take questions that have not been vetted ahead of time. By contrast, when I speak on college campuses, I accept tiny honorariums and am happy to respond to any questions from any attendee, including Greenpeace activists. This is the essence of free speech and open, robust debate, as our Founding Fathers intended. Al Gore clearly does not support these principles. I hope you do, despite the tone of your letter. I am personally in full accord with a letter recently published in the BYU student paper. Institutions of higher learning, wrote PhD geologist and retired astronaut Harrison Schmitt and five other climate scientists, “should promote the seeking of truth. Similarly, science is an objective assessment of hypotheses, by testing concepts against actual data and observations; it is not a matter of votes, popularity or virtual unanimity. We are all harmed, if we allow our universities or our science to be politicized.” I hope you also agree. In closing, I assume you are aware of the debate currently raging within the American Chemical Society over a recent global warming “catastrophe” editorial by Chemical and Engineering News editor Rudy Baum. The reaction of many ACS members mirrors the frustration many of us feel about the way scientific principles, methods and debate have been politicized over global warming. For instance: ACS scientist Dennis Malpass: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare to disagree with you. Shameful!”Edward H. Gleason: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me ... His use of 'climate-change deniers,' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis, is disingenuous and unscientific.”Geochemist R. Everett Langford: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research – that the matter is solved.”I hope you will reconsider the views you expressed in your letter to the Journal, broaden your selection of readings about climate change, and encourage your students and college colleagues to engage in studious research and robust debate on this and other important scientific and public policy issues. Best regards,Paul Driessen

QUESTIONS TO ASK AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS

Rising voter concern about nationalized healthcare has made recent town hall meetings challenging affairs for many members of Congress.

Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. David Legates, Paul Driessen

This article could help spark serious discussion on an equally vital topic that will come up at many town hall meetings this month: energy and global warming
It suggests a number of important, substantive questions that members of Congress need to address, before proceeding further on energy and climate legislation. It could help inspire and energize people to participate in those sessions -- and exercise their First Amendment rights to be fully involved in an informed democratic process.
Thank you for posting it.
All the best,
Paul Driessen

Questions to ask at town hall meetings
Demand answers from your senators and congressman during their August recess
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system – 17% of our economy – with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation could affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.
They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy – the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do – to prevent hypothetical manmade catastrophic climate change.
Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back.
And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.
Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian reductions in plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide at the December Copenhagen climate conference. He wants to pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.
Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn’t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can’t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?
2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?
3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,” so that America can slash energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?
4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It’s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama’s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?
5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 for a century or more, to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and produce ice-cap meltdowns?
6) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that renewable energy projects can’t be built, either – and we have a huge “energy gap”?
Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these projects?
7) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?
8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical – so that we can have honest, unbiased science … and sound public policy decisions?
9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don’t call predictions – but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 25-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America’s energy and economic future, based on computer models?
10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster – until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Penalize EPA for suppressing free speech?
11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That’s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?
12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn’t that violate their most basic human rights – including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?
Exercise your constitutional rights. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children’s future.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.

AFRICA'S REAL CLIMATE CRISIS

By Fiona Kobusingye

It’s not global warming. It’s a science, priorities, honesty and morality crisis.
Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year, say WHO reports. Lung infections cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.
And yet, day after day, Africans are told the biggest threat we face is – global warming.
Conferences, news stories, television programs, class lectures and one-sided “dialogues” repeat the claim endlessly. Using oil and petrol, even burning wood and charcoal, will dangerously overheat our planet, melt ice caps, flood coastal cities, and cause storms, droughts, disease and extinctions, we’re told.
Over 700 climate scientists and 31,000 other scientists say humans and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide have minimal effects on Earth’s temperature and climate, and there is no global warming crisis. But their views and studies are never invited or even tolerated in these “climate crisis” forums, especially at “ministerial dialogues” staged with United Nations money. Al Gore refuses to debate any of these experts, or even permit questions that he hasn’t approved ahead of time.
Instead, Africans are told climate change “threatens humanity more than HIV/AIDS.” More than 2.2 million dead Africans every year?
We are warned that it would be “nearly impossible to adapt to the loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” which would raise sea levels by “5 to 15 meters.” That certainly would impact our coastal communities. But how likely is it?
The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50 degrees F! Summer in its Western Peninsula barely lasts two months and gets maybe 10 degrees above freezing for just a few hours a day. Not even Mr. Gore or UN computer models talk about raising Antarctic temperatures by 85 degrees F year-round. So how is that ice supposed to melt?
Let’s not forget that sea levels have risen 120 meters since the last Ice Age ended. Do the global warming alarmists think cave men fires caused that? Obviously, powerful natural forces caused those ancient glaciers to come and go – and caused the droughts, floods and climate changes that have affected Africa, the Earth and its animals and people for millions of years.
Just consider northern Africa, where green river valleys, hippopotami and happy villages suddenly got turned into the Sahara Desert 4,000 years ago. Scientists don’t know why, but it probably wasn’t Egyptian pharaohs building pyramids and driving chariots.
However, the real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s that the almost total absence of electricity is keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.
The average African life span is lower than it was in the United States and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans are being told we shouldn’t develop, or have electricity or cars because, now that those countries are rich beyond anything we Africans can imagine, they’re worried about global warming.
The world needs to go on an energy diet, Al Gore and UN climate boss Yvo de Boer tell us. Well, I have news for them. Africans are already on an energy diet. We’re starving!
Al Gore uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year. And those anti-electricity policies are keeping us impoverished.
Not having electricity means millions of Africans don’t have refrigerators to preserve food and medicine. Outside of wealthy parts of our big cities, people don’t have lights, computers, modern hospitals and schools, air conditioning – or offices, factories and shops to make things and create good jobs.
Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from malaria, TB, cholera, measles and other diseases that we could prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities.
Hypothetical global warming a hundred years from now is worse than this?
Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against humanity.
Meanwhile, China and India are building new coal-fired power plants every week, so that they can lift their people out of poverty. So even if Africa remains impoverished – and the US and Europe switched to windmills and nuclear power – global carbon dioxide levels would continue increasing for decades.
Even worse, the global warming crusaders don’t stop at telling us we can’t have electricity. They also campaign against biotechnology. As American, Brazilian and South African farmers will tell you, biotech seeds increase crop yields, reduce pesticide use, feed more people and help farmers earn more money. New varieties are being developed that can resist droughts – the kind Africa has always experienced, and the ones some claim will increase due to global warming.
Environmental radicals even oppose insecticides and the powerful spatial insect repellant DDT, which Uganda’s Health Ministry is safely using (along with bed nets and modern ACT drugs) to eliminate killer malaria. They claim global warming will make malaria worse. That’s ridiculous, because the disease was once found all over Europe, the United States and even Siberia.
Uganda and Africa need to stop worrying about what the West, the UN and Al Gore say. We need to focus on our own needs, resources and opportunities.
We don’t need more aid – especially the kind that goes mostly to corrupt officials who put the money in private bank accounts, hold global warming propaganda conferences and keep their own people poor. We don’t need rich countries promising climate change assistance (maybe, sometime, ten years from now), if we promise not to develop.
We need to stop acting like ignorant savages, who thought solar eclipses meant the gods were angry with them, and asked witch doctors to bring the sun back. We need to stop listening to global warming witch doctors, who get rich telling us to keep living “indigenous,” impoverished lives.
We need trade, manufacturing, electricity and transportation fuels to power modern industrial economies. We need to do what China and India are doing – develop – and trade more with them.
That is how we will get the jobs, prosperity, health and environmental quality we deserve.

______________
Fiona Kobusingye is chairman of the human rights and economic development group CORE Uganda. In the coming months, CORE will present both Al Gore’s movie and another film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” at colleges and other events. It will do what Al Gore and the UN never permit: let people ask questions, debate the films and decide for themselves who is telling the truth, and what Uganda and Africa should do to make life better for their people.

THE CONSTITUTION AS HOPE

By Jim Beers

Unnoticed and unmentioned in all the hoopla recently about the black Harvard professor that had to break into his own home and the white officer trying to do his duty is a remark made by President Obama several days into the affair. The President said that some people think he should not have said anything about this local police matter but "I disagree". These final two words are very troublesome and dangerous for us all.
Our Constitution had (until recent years) done a pretty good job of keeping the central government specifically limited in scope, meaning in authority and in what matters they are to be responsible for administering. All else was to remain "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." per the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The attitude of the President (and by acquiescence), his appointees, and the Congress to a President that might both "without knowing all the facts" and merely on his own whim declare a (national as in The Presidential or Monarchical sense) position on such a local matter is very, very troubling. Kings of old used to have people killed or imprisoned (in France the King merely had to issue a "Letter de cachet" and the hapless subject was imprisoned or exiled with no recourse to a court of law). The Founding Fathers specifically forbade (they thought) this with the strict role for the national government and all power vested in "States" or "the people".
There are several obvious reasons why the President's attitude is dangerous. There is the precedent when local matters go to local or State or Federal courts that "The President said" or simply the knowledge by Presidential backers or nation-lovers in juries and elsewhere that "The Leader" believes thus and so. There is the created policy potential that local bureaucrats or local or State politicians will "make an example" of the hapless citizens or in this case all police officers identified as having angered "The Leader" and his minions that do things like pass out money and patronage. What I would like to mention is something that, as an old veteran bureaucrat, I believe few are familiar with in this matter.
When the President says something like this about State or local matters publicly and in his capacity as President he sends a strong signal to his appointees, career-hungry bureaucrats, Congress, State politicians, and even State bureaucrats that "a way to get ahead (promotion, bonus, appointment, prestige, grants, favors, etc.) is to discover', expose, and recommend remedies for such instances that suddenly turn up everywhere." The "Secretary" or "Czar" proclaims racist police activity in (fill-in-the-blank). The power-hungry agency head recommends a budget initiative to wipe out racist police activity in State wardens. The Division Officer and the Regional Director ask for "more" for their initiative to document and eliminate racism in (fill-in-the-blank). The young bureaucrat-to-be reports racism in this that and everything. The State delegates and State appointees and State bureaucrats likewise ask for State funding to please The President whose favor they more and more covet. Cooperators and "partners" from certain "Reverends" and lobby groups are found to be all too ready to enable the whole affair in may ways and often undetected until they collect their share of the booty. "But wait (to quote the late great Billy Mays) there is more". The really bad part is yet to come.
As this whole tawdry thing plays out beyond this "beer" business a precedent both real and psychological is enshrined. If The President has a gripe about trapping, or hunting, or pet ownership, or private property rights, or cutting trees, or dams, or animal husbandry etc., etc., ad infinitum: all he need do is mention it a "Voila" the federal government grows into that area and bureaucrats and States and "the people" all bow down like the Scots were doing in that movie Braveheart when the King or his designee could claim new brides for their own instant gratification. The Constitution never envisioned nor could the Founding Fathers have imagined that we would ever become so fat, dumb, and happy that we would let such things take root among us. How many of you horse owners or fishermen or farmers or dog breeders ignored this matter thinking "it doesn't affect me"?
As long as we elect politicians (Federal and State, Democrat and Republican) that let this sort of thing slide, we will reap our own self-contrived whirlwind. When the dust settles the nation will look like Greensburg, Kansas after the tornado only there won't be a bunch of rich greenie outfits willing to put it back together as a model for others. No, our nation will remain in ruins in the eye of a political storm that has no intention of moving on once it has destroyed our nation to make it subject to their own instant gratifications.
Only if the Constitution can be resurrected and made the Supreme Law of the Land once again is there and Hope for any of us, including those that anticipate coming out "on top". The coming elections and Supreme Court rulings will tell the tale. Either we will rule ourselves except for the necessary State government functions and the few (defense and interstate commerce) needs for a central government or we will once again bow down when "The Leader (will he also swim the Yangtze River?) rides through town or face angering a Supreme Authority that grants or withholds "Rights" as suits his purposes. The choice is ours.

SAVE MY RIGHTS, PLEASE

By Jim Beers

For the past four decades (since the late 1960's when race riots and "free" love and drugged-up hippies advocating "peace" and the "environment" emerged under a Democrat White House and Democrat-controlled Congress) American history has been dominated by the destruction of "unalienable" and Constitutional Rights with the simultaneous erosion of State and local government authority and the customs, traditions, culture, and freedoms that have been the hallmarks of American society for over 2 centuries. All of those things that distinguished the United States from all other nations and that were the magnets for immigration levels unmatched in world history are being swept away as we disregard our Constitution, embrace European government models, and become abject before other nations for not having been perfect throughout our existence. Anyone not recognizing this truth and not concerned about the breathtaking acceleration of these changes at this time (summer 2009) need not read further.
The radical late 1960's noted above resulted in many destructive trends. Presidents, Congressmen, and even Supreme Court Justices with but a few exceptions catered, for myriad reasons few of which could be called honorable, to the radicals and their Draconian objectives. A few examples make the point:
- The Supreme Court fabricated a "right to privacy" out of thin air thereby legitimizing "recreational" sex and set in motion the deterioration of marriage and family life at the expense of the lives of unborn children. The results also included a growing acceptance of same-sex political demands, debates about killing children now up to two years of age, tolerance for mercy-killing, and consideration of euthanizing the elderly (see current "Health Care" legislative proposals for mandatory "end-of-life" counseling and claims about how "we" (through "our" government) have a right to deny care to the elderly or to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions and euthanize the elderly or disabled ("since we are paying for it"). The loss of the first and most important "unalienable' right "endowed by their Creator" as mentioned in The Declaration of Independence, i.e. "Life", is indisputable for the millions sacrificed with government authority over the past four decades.
- Large cities like Boston, New York City, Chicago, and the Northern New Jersey megalopolis have dominated their State legislatures and forced passage statewide and locally of gun control legislation that clearly "infringes" on the Constitutional "right to bear Arms" that is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Further the government of the District of Columbia, and federal agencies like The National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service (all composed of bureaucrats ostensibly sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and paid for by US tax dollars) have instigated and enforced extreme infringements (i.e. total bans) on the Constitutional "right to bear Arms". The Supreme Court, Congress, and several Presidents (again all of whom are sworn to uphold the Constitution while being paid by "We the People"!) have supported this destruction of a Constitutional right of millions.
- Congress passes, and Presidents sign, legislation like The Endangered Species Act, examples of which regarding the elimination of private property rights, State's rights, and individual rights would fill books. Congress passes, and Presidents sign, legislation demanding that everyone be classified by race and gender for "preferences" in hiring, contract awards, bonuses, transfers, housing, and on and on: each "preference" given is a right denied another solely on a basis that should be repugnant to anyone believing that "all men are created equal".
- The current "Health Care", "Stimulus Funding", "Buyouts of GMC and Chrysler", "TARP Funding", etc. changes all involve losses of rights for doctors, patients, car buyers, investors, the elderly, young children, and so many others. The rate of passage of recent elimination of rights is staggering and the fact that it is all rushed through as an "emergency" 1.) without public hearings - or 2.) copies made available for public review - or 3.) with Congressional confessions that they have not even read what they pass - or 4.) without any Supreme Court challenges based on enforcement of the US Constitution (the ONLY purpose of a "Supreme" Court), 5.) at the insistence of a President surrounded by radicals of every stripe from abortion expanders to environmental and race extremists to anti-gun and animal rights fanatics.
I have been writing and speaking about this loss of rights for about ten years. My area of interest and expertise tends to be the environment and animal aspects of American society. I support the management and use of wild plants and animals as public property and the ownership and use of domestic animals as private property. I have a long track record with and I am opposed to the unnecessarily restrictive use and insufficient management of public lands. I am opposed to State governments interference with local jurisdiction over domestic animal owners and to federal legislation that goes beyond legitimate "Interstate Commerce" issues. I am opposed to, and despised by, organizations from PETA and HSUS to The Wilderness Society to The Nature Conservancy (the "nest" from which Treasury Secretary "Hank" "Stimulus" Paulson emerged).
None of this is to say that PETA members ought not to be able to advocate veganism or HSUS to collect money for "shelters" (which by the way they do not do). I object when they campaign to stop all hunting or fishing or to force dog breeders out of business or to give "their" animal wardens all manner of un-Constitutional powers. When they attempt to eliminate the ownership and use of all animals (starting with pets and "smart" animals like whales and seals that are so "cute") they must be opposed. Likewise TNC and Greenpeace et al are certainly free to buy property or to advocate avoiding whale meat or seal products; it is when TNC and federal agencies form hidden and illegal partnerships to but and control land or when Greenpeace prevents sensible whale management or recovery of commercial fish stocks that I oppose them. It is when The Wilderness Society and The Sierra Club influence the closure of public lands and the elimination of the management and use of natural resources and when they stack the federal agencies and Universities with fellow travelers that in turn force out resource managers and reinstate pagan worship of nonsense like "Native Ecosystems" and "Wilderness" and "Roadless" and "Electric Motor Only" Areas that they must be opposed. In all of these instances (and there are many more) the "loss of rights" meaning loss of culture, traditions, property, heritage and other aspects of the lives of American citizens is the thing that is most descriptive of the "problem" for those directly affected.
I was fired 10 years ago after 32 years of federal service for doing my job of protecting the rights of State governments to maintain trapping programs dependent on the sale of furs by American trappers to European fur markets. I have since tried to help all those being harmed by government programs like wolf introductions and protection. I have tried to help those threatened by the condemnation of their property by unholy cabals like TNC and Defense bureaucrats. I have tried to help landowners and resource users threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service with the loss of irrigation water or the use of property "designated" as "essential" to some bird flock or fish school. I have tried to help farmers and urban children exposed to goose concentrations and the health hazards they present or rural communities facing imminent destruction because of government radicals in control of government lands. I have tried to help dog owners threatened by Nazi-like animal "welfare" laws and animal wardens. What it almost always boils down to is the question, "how do we get anyone to support us?"
In fact, hunters' organizations seldom support trapping. Easterners and urban folks seldom ever consider ranchers and rural people suffering from wolves. Few people care about government land purchases and control unless they feel threatened themselves. Unless you irrigate or know someone that does, helping irrigators never crosses your mind. If you don't have geese pooping all over the park or schoolyard where your children play or polluting your field such that it will not grow anything in large swaths (from poop) you don't care. If you don't breed dogs, the idea of "no-knock" and even "no-warrant" searches to uncover animal abuse seems justifiable as you gaze at your daughter's golden retriever, Buffy. As States are going broke, the erosion of more State's rights to federal bureaucrats to insure more "Stimulus" or "Bailout" or "Subsidy" money seems like a good bargain (at the moment). So who will support whom? What is "the" answer?
I used to try and suggest people and organizations that would help those asking for help as their rights were threatened but alas few cared. I wrote about the need to help say, gamefowl breeders and cock fighters to remain under the auspices of local jurisdictions (as opposed State or federal authorities) but the hate mail and loss of "readers" was large. No, there is only "one" answer to how to save and restore our rights.
When one right can be eliminated, the precedent for other rights to be eliminated is established and enlarged. Whenever we accept that, sure they need a gun in rural areas but here in the urban area they should be banned, you have opened a door that jeopardizes every other right. Until we each understand that you don't have to own or use guns to grasp the importance of the Right of others to "bear Arms" for instance, that Right remains in jeopardy. Until we each accept the Right of citizens to own and use animals, that Right is in jeopardy. Until we each accept that private property can only be "taken" for a public "use" and that the owner must always be compensated, that Right is in jeopardy. Until we can tolerate that while we may be repelled by uses such as gamefowl owners fighting their birds as generations have done for eons and that we may actively oppose such events and places IN OUR COMMUNITY, if we begin to prohibit such legitimate use of animals by their owners everywhere then not only is that Right in jeopardy; so is hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal husbandry from livestock to poultry. In sum, "your rights are my rights and my rights are your rights".
This means speaking out at family gatherings, at lunches, and with neighbors in a positive way about how you may not agree with such and such but others and other communities should CONTINUE TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MAINTAIN IT. This means not electing politicians that are amenable to taking away the rights of American citizens whoever they may be or whatever they may do that bothers others, no matter what they promise you. This means assuring that schoolteachers and University staffs uphold American values ("unalienable" rights, and Constitutional dictates) or replacing them. This means federal and State agencies that employ bureaucrats that uphold rather that destroy Constitutional principles. This means once again looking at all neighbors as friends and forthrightly correcting and opposing those that would take away the rights of others.
Although there is apparently a significant part of the citizenry amenable to taking away the rights of others, they, like those limited groups they individually target are limited themselves. Whether you want or oppose some New Mexico town to allow a bullring isn't the question: the question is should a New Mexico town continue to have the jurisdiction to apply community standards to their own town and its residents? The question isn't whether there should be another "Wilderness Declaration": the question is should the federal government be able to buy and control land that is neither managed, used, nor accessible? The question isn't whether I should be able to carry a concealed weapon as authorized by my State government on a federal Park or Refuge in MY State; the question is whether federal bureaucrats sworn to uphold the Constitution can deny me this right by claiming State sovereignty over State land and waters for a purpose unrelated to any national security or other issue?
If we cannot "hang together"; this Administration, Congress, Supreme Court, and craven State governments are rapidly proving the old maxim about therefore, "hanging separately".





24 July 2009

If you found this worthwhile