Friday, October 30, 2009


"Calls For A Massive Boycott"
By Ron Ewart
President National Association of Rural Landowners and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright October 28, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

If you are not insulted by the latest antics coming out of Obama and the U. S. Congress on nationalized health care, you are either brain dead or you "ain't" payin' attention. The dolts in Washington DC think they can deceive you by changing the name of Nationalized Health Care with a "Public Option", to Nationalized Health Care with a "Consumer Option". They must think you are pretty stupid and it would appear that many Americans are. Nevertheless, the audacity and arrogance of Larry, Mo and Squirrelly and their go-along minions, knows no bounds.
It's an old propaganda gimmick. If the rhetoric heats up against a government initiative, they change the name and re-package it. They have been doing it for 100 years or more. Remember man-caused global warming? Now it's climate change which obviously leads to mandatory Cap and Trade legislation. Climate change ..... cap and trade, balderdash! A skunk by any other name. If you're buyin' this health care and "climate change" garbage, your intellect, good sense and common sense are in serious question, or worse, the cavity where your brain resides is empty.
For those whose brain fills the space in their cranium and they haven't lost too many neurons or brain cells, they ought to be able to see through this smoke and mirrors with their eyes closed.
Both nationalized health care and cap and trade are red herrings of the highest magnitude and represent one of the greatest cons and Ponzi schemes ever devised by man. Neither is supported by science, a national need, nor is either constitutional. Either one will break the bank. Both of them together will sink the good ship America in a sea of red ink where it will rot forever on the rocky bottom, never to surface again.
But worst of all, nationalized health care and cap and trade legislation are outright frauds, perpetrated on the American people by a group of conmen (and women) that will go to any lengths, including propaganda, hype, distortion and lies, to get you to believe that what they are proposing is motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolet, all rolled up into one shiny cookie. They think that you are the Parrot in, "Polly want a Cracker?"
If either legislation is passed by this treasonous congress and signed by Obama, the American people should rise up in a massive peaceful boycott against all things government, local, state or federal. They should make the Boston Tea Party look like spin-the-bottle between 2-year olds. They should dwarf the 9-12 March on Washington by shutting down all arteries of transportation throughout America, en masse, until government relents to the Consent of the Governed. They should refuse to pay their taxes, again en masse, local, state, or federal, until government returns to the limits of its power contained in the Constitution and lives up to its solemn, fiduciary duty to spend the money in the treasury (our money) wisely and not hand it out, willy-nilly, to buy votes, or in Obama's words "Spread the Wealth". The fact is: America's wealth is not Obama's to spread!
Further, America is not Obama's nation to significantly transform into his community-organizer image, socialism by any other name. The Constitution is not Obama's or the U. S. Congresses' plaything that they can twist, re-interpret, pervert or modify at their whim, to rationalize and then implement their radical agenda. The American people are not Obama's or the U. S. Congresses' subjects that they can manipulate or enslave by executive order, unconstitutional legislation, court decree, or illegal treaties signed and ratified by the traitors within our Republic, in direct violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. What they do is treason.
If this Obama health care rot, or cap and trade legislation is passed, all Americans who still believe in freedom, liberty and unalienable, individual rights, as a gift from our creator, must rise up by the millions in a massive peaceful boycott against government, so that the message is crystal clear that we will not let the 545 people in Washington DC tear down the fabric and the foundation of our freedom, or dilute or repeal our sovereignty. We the people of America are not pawns or serfs of the government, we are sovereign.
Be advised however, that protests or boycotts are of little consequence if only a handful of people participate. Without millions of people engaging in reclaiming this, our Constitutional Republic, the few that do participate will be wasting their time and America, as a land of liberty, is destined to fail, once and for all.
Once again, let us repeat:
"YOUR MONEY IS GOVERNMENT'S MAJOR POWER OVER YOU: The first power that government has over you is YOUR perception that YOUR money is their money. The second power that government has over you is by using the money they take from you by force, against you. The third power that government has over you is that you will religiously obey their laws."
"Only when the people realize that their tax money is being used to environmentally enslave them; only when the people realize that their tax money is being used to "feed" a growing population of other people dipping their bills in the government "pig trough" and those "takers" voting for those very same politicians who take our tax money by force to keep the "trough" full; only when the people realize that our government is using our tax money to merge America into the one-world-order; only when the people realize that the only way to stop this insanity is to peacefully resist government, en masse, in every way possible, will principled changes ever occur."
Our Republic is in grave peril. The question is, who will help save her? Will you?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


By Doug Whitsett Do you ever wonder where environmental organizations get the money to finance their countless lawsuits? The eight most litigious environmental organizations have filed about one thousand six hundred federal court cases against the federal government during the past 15 years. The National Wildlife Federation alone has filed 427 environmental law suits in federal court during that period.
Between 2000 and 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed more than 400 lawsuits in federal district court in addition to filing more than 160 appeals in federal appellate courts. That organization’s website claims that “it works through science, law, and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction”.
Meanwhile, the Center has filed or appealed more than one suit in federal court each week for the last nine years.
Would you be surprised to learn that the preponderance of the money to fund these myriad lawsuits comes from the taxpaying public? Our tax dollars, yours and mine, are being used by these extremist environmental organizations to sue the federal government to prevent access to our cornucopia of natural resource wealth.
Let me explain.
These tax exempt organizations are receiving billions of federal tax dollars in attorney fees and costs, for winning or settling environmental cases against the federal government.
The actual amount awarded in these settlements is often confidential, even though money comes from tax dollars and should be a matter of public record.
There are two major sources of these federal tax dollars.
The first is the Judgment Fund that is a line item expense in the Congressional budget. The fund was created to pay attorney fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs in cases involving the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and several other public laws that also allow the prevailing plaintiff to recover costs and attorney fees.
According to the Budd-Falen Law Offices, in just the time between January 2003 and July of 2007, the Judgment Fund paid nearly 42,000 claims totaling more than $4.7 billion taxpayer-dollars to reimburse prevailing radical environmental organizations for their legal costs and attorney fees. The average reimbursement to the prevailing non-government environmental organization was $112,000. The total amount paid per settlement may never be known because neither the federal government nor its agencies appear to track the payments from the Judgment Fund.
The second major source of prevailing plaintiff payments is the Equal Access to Justice Act. In this scheme, funds are taken from the losing federal agency’s budget to pay the attorney fees and costs claimed by the winning environmental organization.
Between 2003 and 2005, the United States Forest Service alone paid about $1.7 million to 44 prevailing environmental organizations. Once again, it appears that neither the federal government nor its agencies are tracking the cumulative costs of the Equal Access to Justice Act. In fact, the amount of the individual settlement payment made by the agencies to the environmental organizations is often kept confidential.
The federal law allows the court to require the government to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs when the plaintiff prevails in court. The law specifically prohibits the prevailing defendant government agency from recovering their costs and attorney fees. When a case is settled out of court the law allows for the plaintiff to recover their costs and attorney fees if the settlement substantially favors the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is unlikely to settle out of court unless the defendant government agency agrees that the settlement “substantially” favors the plaintiff insuring that the environmental organization gets paid.
This I win or you lose scheme is providing a steady stream of tax revenue to the litigious environmental organizations.
These tax exempt, extremist groups are also extracting their taxpayer-funded bounty in lawsuits filed in state courts. Many of the states, including Oregon, have similar prevailing plaintiff statutes. According to the Attorney General’s staff, during the 2009 Legislature more than thirty fairness to prevailing plaintiff bills were introduced that would have enhanced their access to this ongoing cash tsunami.
The Budd-Falen Law Offices have documented well more than a billion federal tax dollars being transferred to prevailing environmental lawsuit plaintiffs in each of the last nine years. This total is incomplete because the law firm only tracked certain groups and state settlement costs were not included in their study. The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have no way of determining the total amount of their tax dollars that are being funneled to these radical environmental organizations. No one appears to be keeping records.
Citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own private funds to intervene, or participate in these lawsuits to protect their way of life. They have no chance of recovering their costs and attorney fees if they prevail. In fact, the private citizen is paying attorney fees and costs to defend his way of life, while his tax dollars are being used to promote and finance the same lawsuit that would destroy his way of life.
It is often difficult to find any meaningful difference between policies being promoted by government agencies, and policies being promoted by radical environmental organizations through their myriad lawsuits. That distinction is further blurred by the fact that both the agencies, and the environmental organizations, are funded with the same tax dollars.
One thing is certain. The billions of tax dollars funneled to these radical environmental groups is not creating business opportunities and is not creating jobs. Rather, it is serving to destroy businesses, jobs and American wealth.
The ongoing weakness of the United States dollar is a significant threat to American prosperity that should be of great concern to everyone. Since 2002 the value of the dollar is down 34%, as measured against a basket of other currencies. That loss in dollar value has averaged 5% for each of the past seven years.
The long term dollar devaluation has resulted from world-wide investor concern with the absurd growth of the United States national debt. The short term devaluation of the dollar is primarily an issue of supply and demand.
In their effort to curtail the current recession, and to prevent commodity deflation, the Federal Reserve has flooded the market with more than a trillion dollars. In response, the dollar has fallen 12% in value since the Obama inauguration. Recently, the loss in dollar value has accelerated to an alarming rate.
The combination of the loss in confidence in the United States economy, and this massive oversupply of dollars, has caused investors to flee away from United States currency.
The result is loss of American wealth, loss of American industry, and loss of American jobs.
If the value of the US dollar had remained at the 2002 level, $685 dollars would purchase the same ounce of gold that now costs $1,040, and $45 would buy the same barrel of oil that cost $70 today.
Home prices in Oregon have declined significantly, in some areas by more than 20%. However, when we factor in the 34% deflated value of the dollar, the actual loss in value of those homes is closer to 50%.
For instance, if we were to sell a home for $200,000 today we could reinvest the money in a similar home at essentially the same price. However, if we chose to invest the $200,000 in commodities such as gold and oil, or if we chose to invest the money in other currencies, it would purchase a third less of these commodities than the same $200,000 would purchase if the dollar value had remained at the 2002 level.
Moreover, the recent gains in the stock markets are largely an illusion. There is no net gain when the price of stocks increases by one third, while the value of the currency decreases by one third. According to the Wall Street Journal, when compared with another currency such as the Euro, the S&P 500 peaked at around 1700 Euro in 2000, plummeted to 600 Euro in March of this year, and now stands at about 700 Euro. So compared to other world currencies, our stock market has lost nearly 60% of its capitalized value since the year 2000.
Most of the U.S. stocks, and virtually all of the homes, are owned by Americans. The devaluation of the dollar has caused a massive decline in the U.S. share of the global wealth. That wealth is being transferred to other nations, and to multi-national corporations and investment banking consortiums. That transferred wealth is being used to capitalize industrial growth, and to create jobs, in other nations that compete with our own industries.
The certain result of the flight of U.S. wealth and capitol will be prolonged high unemployment as the jobs, follow the money, overseas. As I have said before, in my opinion, this great nation is seriously on the wrong path. It is time for new leadership and new fiscal policy.
Remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Some more multipliers that need to be added to the amount taxpayers get gouged via eco-activists lawsuits include: Government grants (They receive millions!), abortion of resource production (They shut down communities.), dilution of safe, economical, cheap supplies of domestically furnished goods to consumers, and - - higher costs to consumers. Do you think the cost of doing business with these groups is offset by the product they make? Can you define said product? In addition to your money the before-mentioned money government already gives to these groups, do you contribute to them directly? Roni

Saturday, October 10, 2009


By Jim Beers

In December 1967 Paul Ehrlich (a butterfly specialist) predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Additionally he predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon at that time. Tough guy that he was he said government would be forced to make many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. He called for the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would necessarily be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size. Ever since Ehrlich invoked the imagery of a human population bomb, human overpopulation has been blamed for a variety of societal problems from poverty and genocide to unemploymant and environmental decline.
Dr. Ehrlich is one of the early "fathers" of the environmental movement. His anti-human extremism was spawned in the midst of the "free love" and "peace" revolution in the 1960's. Roe v. Wade, The Endangered Species Act, The Wilderness Act, and Animal Welfare Act are each hallmark "accomplishments" of that period of federal government growth. This decade of American history was in fact a period wherein the federal government grew to "save us" from predictions of famine, societal disintegration, and an environment as pictured in the movie "Blade Runner". This federal growth spurt mirrored the 1930's spurt that was justified to "save us" from The Depression, and the 1910 - 1920 spurt that was purported to create a more powerful central government seen as necessary to make the USA a leader of the gestating world government known at the time as The League of Nations. Each of these radical degradations of our Constitutional Republic was an advancement of the radical communal theories of Karl Marx, the "man as just another animal" philosophies of Darwin and Margaret Sanger, and the intellectual snobbery of late 19th century British elites like George Bernard Shaw that advocated all-powerful central governments run by that small group of intellectuals that is so much "wiser" than the rest of us.
Ehrlich's followers include the modern-day environmental extremists and animal rights radicals that similarly espouse more absolute central government control to "save" both the environment and animals from humans and their activities. Claims of "global warming" (it was global cooling in Ehrich's day) and assertions about the "importance" of a "native ecosystem" are, like the claims of Marx and Sanger, unjust assaults on the dignity and rights of man for the purpose of putting all power over the many in the hands of a few. Like the claims of Darwin and Shaw, history will show that they were merely personal agendas dressed up in slanted "science" and myths like Teutonic fables about Aryan supermen.
Dr. Ehrlich and all his forerunners came to mind this morning as the news broadcasts wailed about the plight of San Francisco elites trying to deal with increasingly super-abundant and aggressive sea lions on piers where boatowners and tourists mingle and in the waters where swimmers are becoming reluctant to swim. This West Coast phenomenon is matched by current news reports from the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota of mountain lion sightings and signs in the river bottoms that wend through the suburbs.
Consider, if you will, the public propaganda that informs us about the sea lion and cougar situations:

·The absolute and "eternal" federal protection of The Marine Mammal Protection Act for all sea lions is never mentioned. When will there ever be "enough" or "too many" seals, sea lions, sea otters, etc.? The widespread situation of state laws "protecting" cougars that are not officially present in those states are an abomination. If state governments are advocating the establishment of cougars, let them expose that agenda and then be answerable for the effect of such establishment.

·We are constantly reminded that "we" are in "their" habitat. Are they ever in "our" habitat?

·Assertions that there has "never" been a "documented" attack by cougars on a person in this state are ludicrous. Is the fact that there has "never" been a documented attack by a grizzly bear in Tennessee relevant when one gets loose or wanders into the Smoky Mountains? Does anyone really believe that cougar attacks, bear attacks, wolf attacks, or shark attacks are always reported (or "confirmed) by some central authority? History, both current and historical, is replete with thousands of such attacks that are always glibly glossed over by modern "experts.

·Cougar sightings and damages in Eastern and Midwestern states have been denied and ridiculed for thirty years by "experts" such as state and federal employees, University professors, and environmental organization employees. Could the fact that each and every one of these persons wants such animals (just like wolves and bears) to become established everywhere have any influence on their "professional" pronouncements?

·We are constantly reminded that both cougars and sea lions are "native" species. Since "native" is meant to denote those animals in the USA that were present when Columbus introduced European "pollution"; what biological similarities to America circa 1492 even exist today? Why would anyone advocate a return to several hundred thousand humans in present-day America living primitive lives that Thomas Hobbes the 17th century philosopher would only describe as lives of "brutishness and misery"?

·We are constantly reminded that cougars and sea lions are "completely protected" and that they may not be harmed in any way. So who is responsible when a cougar kills a child or a sea lion bites a swimmer? If I may not defend myself or my family; I have become an animal LESS IMPORTANT than a wild animal in the eyes of (MY OWN?) government.

·We are told to "contact police" in case of an emergency. Aside from the delay in the case of a real emergency (like during a rural burglary or a camping encounter with a grizzly bear), what are the costs of all these "tranquillizing" and "releasing in the wilderness" and "releasing far 'up the coast'" publicity stunts. Why is there never any mention of the cost of gathering of all these "experts" (females in uniforms, uniformed Jim Fowler "wannabees", deputy sheriffs, policemen, and the ubiquitous seal or cougar "advocate" from a nearby "center") and all the equipment from special guns, large nets and cages to A-frame trucks and special boats? In times of economic stress, especially, those costs compared to local hunters (as Florida employs for problem alligators and to control numbers) that USE the animals and PAY for a license or armed law enforcement officers that kill the animal and employ a productive disposal and USE system are like comparing the costs of public education and home schooling.

·There is never any mention of the very real and deadly danger from the presence of these large predators in populated areas. Aside from the nonsense about not "looking at them" and "puffing up" we are left with the impression of animals exciting to see (like tourists that live elsewhere see them) and of no real danger. Those fostering these notions are guilty of a serious endangerment of fellow humans.

·There is never any mention of the impact of all these sea lions on marine commercial fisheries or the inshore plant and animal communities where people fish and recreate. Similarly there is never any mention of the impact of mountain lions on deer or elk numbers, on pets, or on livestock. Just as abundant sea lions impact fisheries, so too do established cougars reduce numbers of game animals, pets, and livestock as well as human activities from hiking to visits to grandmother's house and going to and from school buses.
The media loves these stories. "Animal interest" stories always please readers and prove a useful vehicle for writers to hone their emotional hyperbole. The folks that provide the grist for these stories are mainly state and federal biologists, University professors, Non-Government Organization radicals, and urban socialists.
Their motives can be lumped into two categories. First, if you believe in The Tooth Fairy you would probably believe that their motivation flows from a child-like conviction that there should be no management, no control, and no use of any animals because (Mother) Nature is deserving of our worship and she will do as she will.
The second category, that I happen to subscribe to, is that the activists share the following agenda:
Stopping further development in urban areas, be it more piers or home building. This makes these lands more susceptible to eventual government control or purchase.
Justification for urban clearances "to protect" and/or "save" said critters.
Justification for more citizen control in/near/ and around "critical" habitat for said critters.
Making both urban and rural living habits more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural work and worksites more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making urban and rural businesses from farms and ranches to daycare centers more tenuous and therefore more government-dependent.
Making private property owners from boat owners and ranchers to dog breeders more and more dependent on government and more susceptible to government offers of acquisition or government mandates.
Isn't it strange that these very followers of Ehrlich and Sanger and Darwin NEVER accept that there are TOO MANY of any animal? Be it wolves or cougars or Canada geese, etc. there is no place off limits and no densities considered too high. Yet these very same radicals (The White House staff and Washington politicians are overflowing with them) constantly war on humans that are always TOO MANY for their own good. Abortion, euthanasia, birth control, school indoctrination, aberrant sex encouragement, family destruction, and pressure on religious organizations to cooperate or be destroyed are expanded both nationally and internationally. On the one hand we do everything we can to reduce human numbers by violence, aberrant sex, marriage destruction, and propaganda as we protect animals from any and all human impacts. What is wrong with this picture?
If anyone is not sickened by this situation there is only one solution; change more names. Biologists have changed names of animals like:
Killer whales are now "Orcas" (no longer "killers" but nondescript "Orcas".)
Old squaws are now "long-tailed ducks" (no longer politically incorrect and sexist ducks that chatter 24/7 but merely ducks with a long tail.)
Upland Game Birds are now "Upland ground birds" (no longer "game" for hunters but now simply birds that spend a good deal of the day on their feet as opposed on the wing or in trees.)
Following up on this approach I propose that we rename these two "problem" animals. I suggest that we rename sea lions as "Marine Dogs". Doing away with the picture of the "sea" as a dangerous place and replacing and replacing it with the innocuous word "marine" that few understand and replacing the dangerous aura of lions with that of "dog" we make this "problem" seem even more benign and cute. Mountain Lions (cougars) present a similar issue of perception. I suggest we rename them "Hill Tabbies". What is more benign than a grassy hill and a pet cat? How could a marine dog or a hill tabby be dangerous? Who would not delight in protecting such animals, no matter the cost?
Sarcasm is only worthy because the situation is so stupid and resistant to truth. One hundred years of denigrating humans (always TOO MANY) while elevating wild animals (never TOO MANY) to super-human status is both morally repugnant and intellectually vapid. Like the destruction of our US Constitution during this period we have let the lowest among us gain more and more control of the lives and activities of the rest of us. We have made a bed that we cannot lie in, only die in.
Jim Beers 7 October 2009

Thursday, October 1, 2009


Let us know!

Write to: