Black Conservatives Compare 1964 King March to 2010 Beck Event
by Tom RemingtonAugust 27, 2010
Goals of Events Similar
Washington, D.C. – Black conservatives from the Project 21 leadership network do not see much of a difference in the goals of the August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally talk show host Glenn Beck is organizing at the Lincoln Memorial and the 1963 March on Washington that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. held there 47 years earlier.
Project 21 members contend that the stated purpose of the Beck event is along the same lines as the values of the 1963 rally and the alleged goals of Beck’s critics.
According to Beck’s wesite, the rally seeks to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.” Political activism is being discouraged at the event. Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell are listed among the scheduled speakers.
Because Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally takes place at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington, members of the establishment civil rights lobby are sharply critical. National Urban League president Marc Morial, for instance, calls the Beck event “insulting” and “deliberately trying to poke a stick in our eye.” Al Sharpton says Beck is trying to “hijack Dr. King’s dream.”
Project 21 member Coby Dillard said: “The dream of Dr. King — that every person be judged by their character rather than their color — is one of the tenets that makes our nation honorable in the minds of people around the world. Dr. King’s legacy is a gift to us all, and no one person or organization holds claim to his work and his message. I can think of no better way to honor him by renewing our shared commitment to uphold those principles that have held our country together throughout history.”
Dillard, who is planning to attend the Beck event, added: “As black conservatives, we will continue to work to restore honor not just across our nation but in our communities as well. We will not ‘drink from the cup of bitterness and hatred’ that those who seek to denigrate our efforts share. We will continue to stand with those across this country who realize, as Dr. King said, that our destinies and freedom are eternally bound together.”
Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II said: “Glenn Beck is organizing a nonpartisan event to highlight that ‘our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous.’ Can’t we agree that virtue is something we need more of in America these days? Can’t we agree that any threat to our freedom is a clear and present danger to all of our civil rights? People such as Al Sharpton and Marc Morial would be wise to embrace these ideals, but their intolerance toward the messenger is creating the perception that they are against them.”
Water Shortages Due To More Extensive Government Controls
by Tom RemingtonAugust 26, 2010
Related Articles
Same Rights That Protected Civil Rights Leaders Also Protect Talk Show Host
by Tom RemingtonAugust 26, 2010
Black Conservatives Support Glenn Beck Event on MLK Anniversary
Washington, D.C. – Black activists with the Project 21 leadership network support the right of talk show host Glenn Beck to hold his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Because Beck’s event takes place on the anniversary and at the location of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1964 “March on Washington” rally, leaders of the establishment civil rights groups oppose the event.
“It’s my understanding from reading the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all. And nothing better exemplified that than when Dr. King exercised his First Amendment rights nearly 50 years ago,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “This isn’t about Dr. King or the day and venue itself. It is about a contempt for the message. It is about those who trade on race as a means of notoriety and income fomenting discord for the sake of keeping those who are loathe to realize they are free imprisoned on a plantation of resentment and bitterness.”
Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is described on its web site as a way to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.” It also states that it is a “non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Speakers include Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell.
Among the restrictions on the event, Beck wants no political signs because “they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.”
Marc Morial of the National Urban League, a fierce critic of the Beck event, calls it “insulting” and a “hijacking of the imagery and symbolism of August 28 and the Lincoln Memorial.” Reverend Al Sharpton is planning a “Reclaim the Dream” rally and march that is supported by the NAACP and NUL that will end at the site of the under-construction King Memorial within several hundred feet of the Lincoln Memorial.
Project 21 members question the goals and wisdom of the Sharpton-led event.
“So, Al Sharpton essentially wants to crash Beck’s event. Has anyone noticed how the left loves to invite themselves to things for the sole purpose of smearing them? Just because the good reverend says he doesn’t plan on confrontation, would he explain the provocation of having his marchers be turned loose within yards of Beck’s rally?” asks Project 21 member Bob Parks. “You might want to ask the families of those who suffered — and died — in the 1991 Crown Heights riot or the Freddy’s Fashion Mart firebombing in Harlem in 1995 about how Sharpton’s brand of non-confrontation is working for them. The only reason for bringing marchers that close to the Glenn Beck rally is to start something.”
“Groups such as the National Urban League must realize that Martin Luther King had no monopoly on the public square — or the Lincoln Memorial. Holidays and special events are shared at various sites and on the same day,” said Project 21 member Emery McClendon. “Check the record. Find out that Glenn Beck is holding his event on this day to honor Dr. King as well as to remind all Americans that God alone can heal our Republic. It is an event aimed at restoring honor.”
Will Obama’s Executive Order Restrict Recreational And Commercial Fishing?
by Tom RemingtonAugust 20, 2010
*Scroll for Updates*
God bless Michelle Malkin, a person with enough brains and gumption to report on issues most either ignore, are too ignorant and uninformed to know about, live in denial over, are blinded by idealism or are afraid of ridicule. Malkin has been tackling the issue of the Obama Administration’s land grab, as they seek to further exert the strong and controlling arm of government over the people, threatening to take their land, all in the name of the good of the people.
And now comes Obama’s “stealth ocean grab” from Malkin. This woman must have thick skin to endure and persist from all the ridicule, demonizing and threats lobbied against her over the years and she is sure to take some heat on this issue. Far too many Americans choose to live in ignorant denial about the usurpation of our freedoms, our rights, granted to us by God not some man sitting in the White House who has discovered the power of Executive Order.
Just today, Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest minds of our time, said that it isn’t just evil people who are bent on the “dismantling” of America.
Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have their own agendas that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.
When you combine this kind of selfish, purpose-driven avocation with the fact that most Americans simply refuse to want to believe that America will ever be anything different than their mind’s perception, the ruling class has a clear path at circumventing the U.S. Constitution to achieve the power grab they so rigorously seek.
Sportsmen groups have been ringing the bell of warning about this administration’s actions in seeking to seize control of water access. Within this confiscation of authority is being sought the capacity to zone and control what can and can’t be done in our oceans, our bays, coves, inlets and even so far as having overreaching control within the Great Lakes and most watersheds.
Up to this point, much of this clamoring for power has been channeled through attempts at legislation, meeting opposition, and rightly so, from members of Congress who can actually realize the dangers of yielding control of these waters to the White House. This is the kind of false security that comes with the denial of sportsmen who choose to believe no government would or could ever steal away their rights to fishing and enjoyment of the water.
At times that I have attempted discussions and dialogue with sportsmen, far too many of the responses that came back on me, anchored in anger and disgust, is in and of itself, very troubling. Here’s a sampling of some of the comments:
Nothing but fear mongering and the effort to convince voters that Obama is their enemy by those who are the real enemy of outdoorsmen.
He certainly doesn’t seem to be a skunk in the woodpile, yet he doesn’t seem to be issue-driven.
simply propaganda promoting the (self-serving) interests of the interest groups – in other words, soliciting members for their own – RFA, USSA, and ASA – aggrandizement and the enrichment of their Washington headquarters. This is a blatant attempt by these groups to be seen to be needed, when, in fact, there exists no justification for their existence……….
All you have provided, is a fallacy. You have set before us a presupposition.
are you simply against any effort to conserve fish and habitat?
This is merely a sampling of some of the comments made regarding any thought whatsoever that our Government would consider gaining control over fishing and access to water simply because they can. As was pointed out often in these discussions, none of us have heard any specific issue pertaining to water access that Obama wants to end, therefore, are we to simply have faith in this man and his administration that his exploration of power and control is all for the good of the people and the conservation of water and fishing? This attitude on its face is dangerous and foolish.
Obama has now gone one step further. According to Malkin, the President has once again exercised his Executive Order allowance and formed an alliance of czars to grab control over “conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes.”
Are we still to rely on our belief that until President Obama has a specific issue that will end our rights to water access and the use of our resources, we should trust him? How can you honestly have trust in a man that feels the need to disregard the will of the people, circumvent the Constitutional process, all for the sake of furthering his agenda?
Certainly it doesn’t matter if there is no specific issue that will hijack our liberty, once total control of this is placed in the hands of one person, it’s too late.
We can still pick up our fishing rods and head to our favorite fishing hole but for how long? Hopefully forever, but do we ensure that lifelong heritage by placing faith in one man or one group of unelected officials? Not one member of Obama’s “neon green radicals” was elected by the people. Where is the government of and by the people? Do you really believe their goal is to conserve your fishing rights?
*Update*
ESPN Outdoors downplays any real serious threat to sport fishing but claims outspoken outrage from fishermen got the attention of the White House.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
EEOC Warns Employers: If You Don’t Want to Hire Felons, You Need a Good Reason
by Tom RemingtonAugust 16, 2010
Washington, D.C. – The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is warning employers that it is illegal to use a prospective employee’s past conviction records, even for serious felonies, as an “absolute measure” as to whether they should be hired because this “could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups.”
This is, the EEOC says, because blacks and Hispanics are over-represented among felons.
“Blacks and Hispanics also have an unfortunate higher high school and college dropout rates than whites and Asians — surely this could be determined to be a disparate impact. Does that mean the EEOC could mandate that employers cannot consider an applicant’s education? Where will it stop?” asks Justin Danhof, general counsel of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It is unfortunate that the EEOC is placing outdated racial politics ahead of the American workforce at a time when employers should be encouraged to hire, but this mentality will likely make businesses think twice about plans for expansion. Employers should be free to consider the full content of an applicant’s character when making hiring decisions.”
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It does not ban discrimination based on character. Furthermore, it’s odd that an agency charged with stopping racism and sexism in hiring has adopted a policy that will help more white males than members of any other group.”
“The EEOC should not be trying to micromanage private hiring decisions beyond the authority given to it by Congress,” added Ridenour, “which this wrongheaded policy surely does. And pity the poor employer, fearful on the one hand of being charged with racism if he does not hire a felon — white though that felon might be — but fearful on the other of being sued by his other employees, should that felon commit a crime at the workplace that harms them. Certainly employers should be permitted to hire felons; even applauded when appropriate, but they should not be made to feel they could be asked to defend themselves in court if they do not.”
Federal Agency Thinks Background Checks Can Discriminate Against Blacks, Hispanics
by Tom RemingtonAugust 14, 2010
Convicts as a Protected Class?
Washington, D.C. – Attorneys at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believe new technology that makes it easier for employers to check the criminal and credit histories of applicants also makes it harder for blacks and Hispanics to find jobs. Members of the Project 21 black leadership network fault this position, noting that it unjustly interferes with the ability of employers to build a trusted and coherent workforce.
“Background and credit checks are legitimate hiring and recruitment tools,” said Project 21 member Horace Cooper, a former visiting assistant professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law. “There is no federal law making a refusal to hire convicted felons a crime, and felon status is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Especially in the midst of a recession, suits like these — which charge racial discrimination — falsely serve to only make hiring decisions unnecessarily harder and lessen the impact of real allegations of racism.”
Adrienne Hudson filed a lawsuit against First Transit after she was fired from a bus driver position with the company. She alleges her firing was due to her prior conviction for welfare fraud, and that First Transit discriminates against blacks and Hispanics when it does background checks because these minority groups have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites. First Transit representatives would not comment.
The AP reports the EEOC believes background checks can have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics, and quotes EEOC assistant legal counsel Carol Miaskoff saying “the problem is snowballing because of the technology” that is making it easier to do such checks.
Last fall, the EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit against the Freeman Companies event-planning company that claimed the company’s background checks discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and men.
“Once again, the liberal legal theory of ‘disparate impact’ is trotted out. This time, it is by the bean-counters at EEOC. They are now arguing that if an employer conducts background checks on employees they are, in effect, discriminating against black and Latino applicants. But shouldn’t employers have the right to set standards for those they seek to employ and reject those who have criminal records?” said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com “Americans strongly believe in the concept of redemption, but there must be consequences for illegal behavior. To claim otherwise suggests that employers should ignore employment standards and simply hire people based on some ideological concept of ‘social justice.’ The notion that criminal background checks disadvantage blacks and Latinos is based in the reality that blacks are 38 percent of the prison population but only 12 percent of the general population. This shouldn’t be used as an argument for eliminating employment standards, but a reason to understand and combat the dysfunction and violent criminality that’s an all-too-real part of poor black urban life.”
The big lie; federal ownership of public lands
by Greg FarberAugust 13, 2010
I’m heading into the Idaho Mountain back country for three months, blogging is boring the holy piss outta me, and I am convinced it is a waste of time. I’m taking my bow, quiver is full, knife, rod and reel and along comes the nice rifle as well.. I intend to get me some satisfaction. One day you might read about it. Enjoy a little more truth below.. See you all Around, G.F.
With a series of unconstitutional takings, beginning almost a century ago, the federal government now claims to own almost two-thirds of Idaho. Most of that “ownership” is claimed as lands “administered” by the Forest Service.
This is one of the lies that, having been told often enough, is now believed to be true. We want to believe in the sanctity of our national parks, wilderness areas and forest lands. They are a wonderful public resource. However, the truth is, the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from owning this type of property within a state.
Political power often leads to corruption, and in Idaho, like everywhere else, the federal government has become the very definition of corruption. Just like the native peoples, whose treaties with the federal government have been broken, much of Idaho’s public lands have been stolen by the Great White Father in Washington, D.C.
Any comparison between constitutionally formed government and the usurpers in the administrative regimes which now rule us becomes a study in deceit and deception. Pick any subject that is “governed” and look into the legitimate constitutional authority and limitations to govern that subject. Compare these constitutional facts of life with how government is operated today.
This is also a wonderful study in how the Hegelian opportunists in the administrative realms find or manufacture a problem, proclaim themselves to be the solution, and secure a job for life at public expense. Once a small problem is discovered and they have secured their position as the solution, these opportunists become well positioned to multiply the problems they claim to be solving, until an unfathomable depth of bureaucracy is formed. Today’s Forest Service provides just such an example.
In the words of Gifford Pinchot, who championed his cause and became the first chief of the Forest Service, “the fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use.” He said the federal forest reserves were needed, “rather to help the small man making a living than to help the big man to make a profit.”
What began as a solution to the fraudulent schemes of the timber barons of a century ago now prevents many a small man from making a living, while disease and insects devour accessible timber. No longer helping the small man, the forest service now requires a “permit” to travel on many “wild” rivers and wilderness areas, or to park a vehicle near a cross country ski trail. By administrative edict, they have recently made it a crime for the public to drive on a majority of the forest road system.
Through a “test program” called the “Recreation Fee Demonstration Project” they are applying the thin edge of the wedge to turn public lands into a private business for bureaucrats. “Four federal public land agencies have been empowered to test various ways to provide increased benefits to visitors of public lands through recreation-use fees,” says the Forest Service brochure, “Our National Forests.”
Whose national forests? How have we become subjected to these convoluted schemes? Or more importantly, does the federal government have any business administering public lands within a state? Let’s look at the facts and the history behind the BIG Lie.
The constitutional facts of life
The founders of America drafted the United States Constitution to form a limited federal government. It was designed to take care of only those things which were truly our national business. The state governments or the people were to keep all other powers. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “…the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state.
The state of Idaho began as the Idaho Territory. This federal territory was acquired by a treaty with Great Britain, popularly known as the Oregon Treaty and from treaties with the Indian tribes. Most of Idaho was to become Indian reservations until gold and other valuable interests were discovered. Then the federal government wouldn’t keep its word with the Indians. This caused wars when the federal government imposed new treaties taking away more native lands. However right or wrong the treatment of the Indians and their treaties were, the Idaho Territory was formed and became a federally-held property.
In 1890, Idaho was admitted as a state in the union and its government was formed by the state Constitution. Article Ten, Section 4, of the Idaho Constitution says “All property and institutions of the territory, shall, upon the adoption of the Constitution, become the property and institutions of the state of Idaho.”
This second constitutional fact of life conveyed the territorially held lands to the new state.
“The people,” at least the 64 people who signed the Idaho Constitution, gave up their interest in the public lands in Article Twenty-one, Section 19, of the Idaho Constitution. That section states in part: “And the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof … and until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be subject to the disposition of the United States…”
This is the third constitutional fact of life.
Those 64 people, acting as a constitutional convention for Idaho, essentially quit claimed “the people’s” interest in the public lands. It is important to remember that the Idaho Constitution was signed at the convention in August of 1889. Idaho was still a federal territory then. The title to the unappropriated lands remained with the federal government until Idaho became a state the following year.
Many things happened when Congress passed the Idaho Admission Act in 1890. Idaho was admitted into the union as a state on an equal footing basis with the other states. Congress also “accepted, ratified and confirmed” the Idaho Constitution in the Idaho Admission Act. Some public lands were specifically appropriated in the Admission Act, as state endowment lands for schools and other state purposes.
The other remaining public lands were not specifically granted to the state for particular purposes.
As a state, Idaho’s relationship with the federal government also changed. Once Idaho was no longer a federally-held territory, the Federal Constitution imposed new limitations on the federal government. They were now prohibited from owning non-military property in the new state, initiating the first constitutional fact of life.
When Congress accepted, ratified and confirmed the Idaho Constitution, they both conveyed any unappropriated lands held as property of the Idaho Territory to the new state of Idaho and released any interest “the people” may have had in those lands to the state, giving the state clear title to the unappropriated lands. This “extinguished” the United States title to those lands since the federal government was now prohibited from owning them and “forever disclaimed” the people’s interest in the unappropriated public lands, bringing the second and third constitutional facts of life into force and effect.
The beginnings of the Big Lie
So how did we get federal forest lands in Idaho? Constitutionally, after obtaining the consent of Idaho’s legislature, the federal government can own a fort or a building, but not public forest lands. Did those in the seat of federal power pay attention to the truth and abide by the limitations imposed by the Constitution which gave them the power in the first place? Even though statehood was achieved, the federal government continued to treat Idaho as if were still a federal territory.
Just as they did to the Indians, the federal government would eventually take back much of the lands which became state property. Using both the hammer of the law and a seemingly benevolent administration, the Big Lie was forged.
Idaho became a state during the industrial revolution. While the wheels of industry were rolling in the east, Idaho was still a relative frontier, with largely untapped natural resources. Timber and minerals were the main items of industrial interest. Many industrialists were already capitalizing on the new state’s abundance.
As is often the case when greed is a prime motivator, many of those involved engaged in less than honorable conduct. A great land grab was underway. Beginning in the Great Lakes region, timber Barons and speculators had spread their schemes to the Northwest.
Taking advantage of federal programs to sell land to settlers and homesteaders, the unsavory schemers would use dummy settlers to file false claims or they would “sponsor” settlers who would sell the lands back to them soon after they were acquired from the government.
The Timber and Stone Act of 1878 permitted individuals to buy up to 160 acres of timber or stone at $2.50 an acre provided the land was solely for their own use and they had made no prior agreement to convey the title to another person. These near give-away programs, intended to benefit the common man, ended up benefitting the industrialists who picked up properties at a fraction of their value.
The “solution” to the “problem” had a two-pronged approach. Prosecutions for land fraud began while a federal scheme to “reserve” and “administer” these lands and their resources emerged. Good intentions have paved many a dark highway.
Timber fraud in high places
Oregon was one of the first places where prosecutions for timber fraud were initiated. An Oregon land ring had been gobbling up public land in Oregon and California. Former Oregon congressman Binger Hermann, was then head of the General Land Office, which sold lands to settlers. Agents discovered a major scandal that led to his resignation.
He was indicted for burning his files but was never convicted. Oregon’s senior senator John Mitchell was convicted for taking a bribe. Eventually, a congressman, a U. S. Attorney, a U. S. Commissioner and three state senators were caught in the scam. Oregon’s other U. S. Senator Charles Fulton was also suspected of being involved in the land frauds.
In 1907, evidence emerged that created much suspicion of similar land frauds in Idaho. The Barber Lumber Company of Wisconsin had obtained 40,000 acres of timberlands in the Boise Basin through fraudulent schemes that involved well-connected Idaho political figures.
Among those suspected was Idaho’s Senator William Borah, who had been the attorney for the Barber Lumber Company. Borah and ten others were eventually indicted. This all occurred during very “interesting times” in Idaho history. Borah was under indictment for the land frauds while he was also appointed as a special prosecutor for the murder case against the miners who allegedly had blown up and killed Idaho’s Governor after the mining wars in the Silver Valley.
The unrest from the mining confrontations was still a hot issue as Pinchot and Roosevelt doubled the size of the National Forests, many of them in Idaho.
Good Intentions and the Great Theft
The timber resources of the country were being cut at a rate that alarmed many people. “America had but twenty years of timber left,” said Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot said Theodore Roosevelt’s timber policy was to provide “the greatest possible good to the greatest possible number.”
Such was the cry of the eastern socialist offering his “solution.” As an aristocrat with a passion for public service, Pinchot was the architect of Roosevelt’s conservation policy and the force behind its implementation.
Pinchot was educated in Europe and later at three of America’s best private schools. At Yale, he was inducted into Skull and Bones, the colleges most prestigious secret society. Yale offered no forestry courses and the profession didn’t exist in the United States, so he enrolled in the French Forest School at Nancy. There he learned that “forestry is the art of using a forest without destroying it.”
He returned in 1890 to an America that was obsessed by a “fury of development.” He wrote that America “was fiercely intent on appropriating and exploiting the riches of the richest of all continents — grasping with both hands, reaping what he had not sown, wasting what he thought would last forever.”
Beginning with almost a billion acres of forests when the first Europeans arrived, the government had already given away much of the public lands. Over 150 million acres went to encourage railroad construction; 4.5 million to promote canal building; 3.5 million to build wagon roads; 2.25 million as an incentive for river improvement. Almost 100 million acres had gone to settlers under the Homestead Act and millions more under the Timber and Stone Act.
By 1900, roughly half of those billion acres had been cut and four-fifths of the remaining timberlands were in private hands.
There was a genuine problem of industrial exploitation. Over zealous harvesting to feed the wheels of growth and expansion left a legacy and a scar upon America’s forests. Pinchot had many sound forest management ideas, which he had demonstrated as the forester for the 3,500-acre woodland on George Vanderbuilt’s Biltmore Estate. Among his beliefs was “the fundamental idea that forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use.”
Pinchot’s work at the Biltmore Estate led to his design of a forestry course at Columbia University and a contract to study the New Jersey forests. He also became involved in New York politics, campaigning with the Citizens Union for Social Reforms.
The beginnings of our national forests
In 1876 Franklin B. Hough was appointed as the first national forestry agent under the Department of Agriculture. Hough reported to Congress on the condition of American forests. By 1881 a Division of Forestry was established where Hough continued the study of America’s timber. In 1886 the Division of Forestry was given formal recognition with Dr. Bernhard Fernow at the helm.
On March 3, 1891, the Forest Reserve Act authorized the creation of “forest reserves.” In 1896 the National Academy of Sciences appointed a seven-man National Forest Commission. Presidents Harrison and Clevelend had already proclaimed almost 20 million acres as forest reserves but there was no plan or rules to govern their use.
Charles Sargent chaired the commission and Pinchot became it’s secretary. 1897 began the management of the forest reserves under the Organic Act.
In July 1898, Gifford Pinchot replaced Fernow as the forester at the Division of Forestry which had grown to 60 employees.
As President Cleveland was about to leave office he issued proclamations creating 13 new forest reserves, stirring outrage and protest in the west. During the McKinley administration Pinchot was appointed to chief forester and traveled throughout the west to appease the fears of westerners and spread his views of enlightened forest policy.
Enlightened as it may have been there was no constitutional basis for this federal policy. Pinchot also consulted with the then New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt on the future of the state’s forests. This began a relationship which developed further when Roosevelt became president.
Pinchot became very influential with President Roosevelt and drafted the forestry section of his first state of the union address in 1901. The Roosevelt-Pinchot forest policy was formulated as “the fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use” and “the forest reserves should be enlarged and set apart forever, for the use and benefit of our people as a whole, and not sacrificed to the shortsighted greed of a few.”
Pinchot began to dedicate himself to a problem. The Interior Department controlled the forest reserves, but had no foresters, while the Bureau of Forestry in the Agriculture Department had foresters, but no forests. A bill calling for such a transfer was defeated in Congress in 1902, so Pinchot conceived the American Forest Congress, a consorttium of various special interests.
He later admitted that it was “planned, organized and conducted” by his bureau to transfer power and forests to his agency.
In 1905 the Transfer Act passed into law, converting the Bureau of Forestry into the Forest Service and the forest reserves into national forests administered by the new Forest Service. Foresters and 86 million acres of national forests were combined in the new agency with Pinchot at the helm.
The new federal timber barons: Theft by proclamation
Pinchot became a target of western politicians who accused him of “Pinchotism.” One Colorado legislator said this enormous territory of forest reserves is an empire within a republic, ruled by a despot with as much power as the Czar of Russia.”
The Roosevelt-Pinchot forest program met fierce opposition in Idaho. 20,336,000 of Idaho’s 53,945,000 acres had been designated as 17 national forests by 1907. Pinchot’s plan was taken as a grievous affront to state sovereignty. Oregon’s Senator Fulton introduced an amendment to the 1907 Agricultural Appropriations Bill which would deprive the president of any authority to create more national forests in many of the western states.
The bill passed and needed the president’s signature by March 4 to become law. Without his signature, the Agriculture Department and the Forest Service would have no funds to operate. Roosevelt and Pinchot responded by preparing and issuing 32 more proclamations creating and expanding national forests by March 2. These doubled the area of the Forest Service to approximately 150 million acres.
The president then signed the Agriculture Bill which funded the Forest Service and ended, at least temporarily, the presidential power to proclaim new national forests.
The forest reserves were created by issuing “Presidential Proclamations.” These executive edicts were not legislated or approved by the Congress. The Legislature of Idaho gave no consent for the federal government to purchase these forest lands and federal government did not actually purchase these “forest reserves.” The Forest Service only “administers” the forest reserves. This pretended ownership by administration continues to this day.
Have it both ways?
On the one hand, the federal government only claims to “administer” these lands, not own them, until, on the other hand, they want to prosecute people “criminally” for violating Forest Service regulations. As a matter of established law, “federal criminal jurisdiction” only exists on property owned by the federal government when the state has ceded its jurisdiction to the federal government, as the following courts have ruled:
”A state retains complete and exclusive political jurisdiction over land purchased by the United States without the consent of the state or where political jurisdiction has not been otherwise ceded to the United States by the state.” (US v. San Francisco Bridge Co., D.C.Cal. 1898, 88 F. 891).
”When United States acquires property by purchase, consent of state must be secured before United States has complete jurisdiction over property.” (Hayes v. US, C.A.Kan. 1966, 367 F.2d 216).
”Constitution prescribes the only mode by which the United States can acquire land as a sovereign power, and, therefore, they hold only as an individual when they obtain it in any other manner.” (US v. Penn, C.C.Va. 1880, 48 F. 669).
”When land or other property is acquired by United States by purchase or condemnation without consent of state legislature, it would not be entitled to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over property, as state has retained right to exercise its general police powers.” (McEachin v. US, D.C.App. 1981, 432 A.2d 1212).
Those who have been unfortunate enough to receive a citation for violating some federal forest regulation will find the federal government claims an authority to prosecute them under the “Property Clause” of the federal Constitution (Article Four, Section 3, Clause 2). The federal government must own the property to invoke the Property Clause, but when a defendant tries to challenge the federal court’s criminal jurisdiction by demanding proof of federal ownership of the property and cession of jurisdiction by the state, the federal prosecutor cannot prove either.
This, however, does not stop the prosecution of the defendant, as my own experience has shown.
The Big Lie of the federal ownership of forest lands within a state must be protected. Anyone who attempts to challenge federal criminal jurisdiction based on the constitutionally impossible nature of federal forest land ownership will find out what power is all about. Federal prosecutors will hide the constitutional facts of life while federal judges ignore them. Truth and justice will be buried to protect the Big Lie. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Federal forest lands exist because the federal powers that be maintain their control by preventing the exposure of the constitutional facts of life. The truth is there cannot be any National Forest lands in Idaho. Truth was one of the casualties in the so-called Civil War. That war was more about states’ rights than slavery, and the federal government has treated the states as mere territories ever since.
Imagine a solution
No, I am not a hegelian opportunist seeking a job for life as the administrator of yet another “solution,” but imagine, for a moment, some possibilities. If the constitutional facts of life were to be recognized we could begin an orderly transfer of the federally held lands back to the state. By also recognizing the other constitutional facts of life that limit the size and scope of state government we could shrink down state government to an honest size. Once state government became affordable again we could eliminate property taxes. And maybe the sales tax. Perhaps even income taxes. How? By the proceeds from the vast resources which properly belong to Idaho.
Two and a half million acres of state endowment lands fund much of our state schools. The over 34 million acres of the now federally-held public lands might also fund the rest of the state and county governments. Instead of property taxes, a portion of the proceeds from timber, minerals, grazing, recreation and other fruits of the land could go into a general fund which would be returned to the counties on a per capita basis. Another portion could fund our state government. Right now the Forest Service pays 25 percent of the stumpage from timber sales to the counties as payment in lieu of taxes. What kind of prosperity would result if all of the stumpage went to an Idaho Public Lands Fund instead?
Many Idahoans are frustrated by the dysfunctional mandates of current Forest Service management policies. The Forest Service is congressionally constipated with contradictory mandates which have given the agency’s holdings the less than affectionate title, “the land of no use.” The original battle cry of the Roosevelt-Pinchot forest policy was “the fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use.” Why not adopt such a policy under state management? This wouldn’t mean and end to our valued wilderness areas. Under an orderly transfer of ownership, the remote and pristine wonders of our state’s natural heritage could become state wilderness areas. The state could adopt wilderness policies promoting recreational use and management by nature, while allowing scientific, common sense, active management of the more accessible and productive public resources.
Through the inaction of the current Forest Service, much of the already roaded public lands are being ravaged by disease and insect infestations. A tinderbox condition has developed from a century of fire suppression preventing nature’s method of thinning the forest. In the absence of fire, failure to mechanically thin nature’s abundance leaves our forests ripe for catastrophic fires, as forest diseases and insects generate the fuel.
Many private landowners and loggers who care about the forest have demonstrated what can be done by working with nature to “perpetuate the forests by use.” Trees killed by insects and disease can be turned into valuable timber if they are harvested timely. Often this results in better forest health, while directing man’s consumptive interests to the bounty of nature’s gifts.
The state could develop a stewardship program where Idahoans could lease or otherwise contract for long term, low impact, resource management of these state public lands. More than just a timber sale, stewardship could involve developing an environmentally sound road system; protection of sensitive areas; wild life habitat enhancement; active management of the forest for long term productivity, as well as developing recreational opportunities for the public on each “steward’s” project area. Our many skilled foresters could be employed, working with the resource stewards as they manage the public lands. This could finally achieve Gifford Pinchot’s original idea for the forest reserves: “to help the small man making a living, rather than to help the big man to make a profit.”
Time for Action?
Idaho has lost more than the 52,712 square miles of the Big Lie. How much has this great timber fraud taken from our state by the failure to “use the forest without destroying it.” Mill closures have plagued the timber industry while disease and insects have a feast. Many of those in the business of making our natural resources productive have a dim future while our public lands are being closed to the public, and their potential is idled.
A few years ago the Idaho legislature passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution, declaring that the federal government must live within the bounds of the Constitution.
Was this just more fuzzy wuzzy, feel good legislation, or did our legislators mean it? Will our state officials act now to end the Big Lie? Can we begin an orderly transfer of what properly is state public land? It may take a state Constitutional Amendment to give the mandate for the management of these lands. The State Department of Lands would have to be expanded, or another agency created, to fulfill the new mandate, but government usually doesn’t mind getting larger and attaching itself to another revenue stream.
Many Idahoans have the common sense, the science and generations of experience to intelligently manage our public resources. If we demand action, and an end to the Big Lie, perhaps our state leaders will follow.
***
Author Hari Heath is a writer and researcher who once thought he could find truth and justice in the federal court system. Having disproved that theory, he now seeks to avoid further contact with the feds.
Hari got into trouble for asking a Forest Service officer questions about his authority and jurisdiction. That resulted in some trumped up charges about “obstruction.” He could have paid a $300 fine and been done with it, but since he still wanted answers to his questions he went to court.
Since peasants are not supposed to bother royalty with impertinent questions (like asking where the Emperor left his clothes) the federal judge tried to make an example of Hari with a sentence of jail time, probation and deprivation of fundamental rights such as his right to protect himself.
That was more than Hari was willing to sacrifice to the beast, and so he departed from his family and now lives the life of a fugitive.
You can read the details of his story here:
http://proliberty.com/observer/harisown.htm
Friends, freedom has a price. The only questions are who will pay and when. Winston Churchill put it this way:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. — Winston Churchill
Will you pay the price for freedom? Or would you rather let that debt accumulate and leave it for your children or grandchildren to contend with?
Hari has a rare gift — the ability to reduce a seemingly complex issue to its bare essentials and present it with crystal clarity. For the past several years Hari has shared that gift with readers of The Idaho Observer and other publications.
Now its time for you to share.
By Hari Heath… Thanks Hari.
Massa Shirley Sherrod?
by Tom RemingtonAugust 3, 2010
Black Conservatives Speak Out on Leftist Accusations About Past Unfair Labor Practices From New Civil Rights Hero
Washington, D.C. – A bombshell accusation by the left against fired U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod regarding alleged grossly improper labor practices against black farm workers in the 1970s is causing members of the Project 21 black leadership network to speak out.
“There has been a mighty effort by liberals to present Shirley Sherrod as a victim — even a saint-like figure. However, after revelations that her husband, Charles, is an anti-white bigot and that she adheres to class warfare politics, it’s now being alleged that Ms. Sherrod presided over the crass exploitation of poor black workers on a southwest Georgia agricultural ‘plantation,’” said Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks.
Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and currently host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com, added: “The fellow making the claim is none other than Ron Wilkins, an ex-SNCC organizer, who should know what he’s talking about. Wilkins says he once worked on the Sherrod-managed plantation in the 1970s. I know this guy from the early days of ‘Black Power’ politics in Los Angeles and he’s known to be a straight shooter. If Wilkins claims are proven to be true, Sherrod owes an explanation and an apology — not only to Wilkins but the other black farm workers she misused.”
In an article posted on the left-wing Counterpunch web site on August 2, Ron Wilkins reported that Shirley Sherrod and her husband, Charles, helped manage the New Communities, Inc. farm in Albany, Georgia in the 1970s. Wilkins claimed the Sherrods and other managers “under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers — many of them less than 16 years of age — in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.”
Wilkins, a former organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who is now a professor at California State University – Dominguez Hills, says he infiltrated the NCI operation in 1974 on behalf of a group overseeing NCI called the Emergency Land Fund. Wilkins claims his later efforts to organize NCI workers while working there led to his firing, eviction for an NCI-owned “shack” and arrest on “bogus” charges.
Wilkins added:
Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000-acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.
In 1974, 67 cents had the purchasing power of $2.91 in 2009 dollars according to the website measuringworth.com. Wilkins claims he made $40 a week ($174 in 2009 dollars) at the time he was fired. His 2010 claims about conditions at the NCI farm and managers’ anti-labor behavior are reported in a September 28, 1974 article in the United Farm Workers newspaper El Malcriado — which specifically cites Charles Sherrod as a manager of the farm.
“It truly is shocking to see someone supposedly dedicated to civil rights now exposed for her involvement in the ugly exploitation of black workers approaching their total abuse in the ante-bellum South,” said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member who is also a nationally-syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “Once again, those on the right are supposed to be the ‘bad guys’ who make life difficult for black Americans. Yet here we have Shirley Sherrod, hailed as a black civil rights leader, allegedly taking advantage of poor black Americans, keeping them poor and firing those who complain about mistreatment.”
Counterpunch is a web site edited by respected leftist journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Wilkins’ article can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html, and a scan of the El Malcriado article can be found at http://tw0.us/MkZ while the entire newspaper in which the article is found is at http://tw0.us/MkU.
Wilkins reports that NCI went out of business in 1985.
“Coyotes In The State Of Nature”
by Tom RemingtonJuly 24, 2010
Editor’s Note: The below is commentary on an article written by Kevin D. Williamson of National Review. The piece is worth reading, well at least for those who cherish liberty. There is something that I would like to point out that Williamson made reference to that I feel as part of my quest to educate readers is necessary to do.
Williamson makes reference to coyotes, a predator that is known to attack humans. He states that “The coyotes’ offensive proceeded along classically predatory lines as the canines ignored the other children in the group and targeted the smallest, weakest child.” And further makes this claim, “Coyotes like to attack the little ones, human or otherwise.”
While there certainly is truth in what the author states, the information is incomplete and therefore misleading. The myth exists that large predators kill or attack only the weak and sickly among its prey. Predators are opportunistic animals that will take advantage of whatever is before them. If hungry enough and/or under the right circumstances, a coyote will attack any human, as well as other large prey such as cows, mules, etc..
Williamson makes reference also to the tragic death of Canadian folk singer, Taylor Mitchell and yet fails to point out the contradiction is his statement that coyotes kill the smallest and the weakest.
This false information leads people to not heed good advice concerning predators as well as is used to convince people that predators keep our ecosystems “tuned up” and running strong because they cull out the weak and sickly.
Kevin D. Williamson, deputy managing editor of National Review, writes: “To use lethal force in self-defense is the ultimate declaration of independence, a kind of momentary secession from the authority of the government whose laws and prisons and police officers have, in that moment, failed the citizen. To acknowledge the right to self-defense — and the concomitant right to be forearmed against aggressors — is to acknowledge that some things are outside the state and its authority, or at least that some moments are outside the state and its authority.”
Take your brush and paint me a radical! Having such thoughts in today’s society just seems to scare the bejeepers out of most people. Failing to get beyond the restrictive emotion of fear when it comes to guns, limits a person’s ability to see and experience real independence.
American citizens are indoctrinated to believe that the purpose of government – which includes the police department, fire department, the prison system, courts, etc. – it to protect and take care of us. As such, as Williamson points out, we assume that having to resort to self defense is a momentary failure of the government. Real independence is to never feel needy of the government to sustain your lifestyle in the first place. If this is radical, you can caption that under my photograph.
We are witness to the rapid erosion of our basic right to live a life of independence because the ruling class wants to control every aspect of our lives. With this mindset, laws are made everyday that strip Americans of their liberty, forcing us to be dependent on the government, having no resources left to practice liberty.
It has gotten so bad, we protect wild animals at the expense of human life and the relinquishing of God given freedoms, in order to control the masses. As such citizens should not be allowed to protect themselves, their families or their property. They must, under the watchful eye of government and those who control, alter their lifestyles in order to accommodate the “rights” of animals or the “rights” of some people.
The controllers don’t want you to have a gun because doing so might frighten someone else. As Williamson rightfully points out, limiting gun ownership and use isn’t about public safety. It’s about control. Protecting predators such as coyotes, bear, wolves, lions, etc., isn’t about animal welfare. It’s about control. Telling me what I can and cannot eat, isn’t about my health. It’s about control. And on it goes.
I’m a radical by today’s standards because I want nothing from government and expect nothing from government. I was born a free human being and I expect to live that way.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Jim Beers: “Incumbents And Wolves”
by Tom RemingtonJuly 20, 2010
Men, women and the card up the sleeve.
I have given numerous talks and written several articles lately about the abuses and growing danger to the nation posed by out-of-control bureaucracies destroying rural America by closing the enormous federal landholdings to sustainable management and use of natural resources and the targeted use of the un-Constitutional power of selective Endangered Species actions from wolves to smelt, suckers, and caddis flies. These latter abuses based on the current Endangered Species Act have emerged as perhaps as great a challenge to American liberties and our way-of-life as the
breathtaking expansion of federal power that has occurred in the very dark days of the first 18 months of the Obama Administration.
In the midst of the backlash to the dark days mentioned above, there has emerged a broad and growing political movement to “throw out all the rascals in Washington”, repeal the onerous and thousands-of-pages-long-laws passed
recently by lawmakers that couldn’t even be bothered to read them, much less justify or explain them. It is this national environment of reformation as we approach the mid-term elections that gives some hope of reorienting this nation from its descent into tyranny that has been growing for several decades.
Because of this possibility of electing a committed new crop of politicians I have mentioned the heretofore unlikely chance of repealing the Endangered Species Act or at least amending it. Some such needed changes are:
1. Make Endangered Species Listings contingent on only the worldwide status of a SPECIES (not national status).
2. Eliminate any Listing of Subspecies, Race, or Populations. Only SPECIES could be listed.
3. Reaffirm the 220+ year US Constitutional mandate that the government MUST PAY JUST COMPENSATION for ANY TAKING of private property made in regards Endangered Species from dogs and irrigation water to any and all property rights as broadly construed.
Additionally, I recommended the very important need to:
1. Repeal the 17th Amendment making US Senators appointed by the legislature of the State. This makes them true representatives of the State and not the current flaks for national and international agendas and all the national Non-Government Organizations that they work for now. Senators that do not represent their state too often remain in office due to support from national and international organizations. State legislators that appoint or allow such rogue Senators to remain in office, should be subject to the righteous wrath of justifiably irate voters within the state. This is a major factor in the dramatic loss of State’s Rights in recent decades.
2. Reform the state and federal land-management and natural resource agencies to staff them with knowledgeable persons committed to the sustainable management and use, in the broadest sense, of the natural resources on government lands.
3. Reform state universities and public schools from the propaganda centers they have become to centers of truth and knowledge so important to a Constitutional Republic like ours.
None of these six recommendations are even remotely possible if the incumbents currently warming Congressional seats return for another two (much less six) years. Reform and restoration depend on new faces but the old faces have stacked the deck and have a card up their sleeve. Take McCain, Feingold, and Reid (please) for instance.
Other than running for “their seat” they also share that ace-in-the-hole of many federal politicians with large and politically powerful Native American enclaves and many (something that amazes me) gamblers interested in “more” or “closer” casinos. Thus that secret exemption in the infamous “McCain/Feingold” election law that prohibits you and me and “our” organizations from “giving” more than such and such OR running political ads after 60 days before the election DOES NOT APPLY TO NATIVE AMERICANS. Additionally, a recent Washington state election recount for Governor was decided by votes “discovered” on large Native American reservations where the tribe runs the polling station, voting rules, and counting. This is but one leg of that octopus rightly called “the power of incumbency” that is continuing the national slide into darkness. Thus are the growing abuses of The Endangered Species Act and similar travesties more and more made to appear unchangeable.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people I meet that agree with me but are reluctant to say anything or much less vote for or actively support the changes that are so important to our future. Likewise I am heartened by the large number of people working hard to make reforms possible. For instance,
- Kimberley Strassel writes thoughtful and hopeful editorials in the Wall Street Journal.
- Sharron Angle has made state changes thought impossible as a state legislator and now has a firm hold on discrediting and replacing that disgraceful incumbent Reid in Nevada.
- Sarah Palin
- Michelle Bachmann, simultaneously an outsider and incumbent, represents the finest traditions as she speaks out bluntly where needed and gives hope to the disparate Americans desperately trying to reverse America’s drift into tyranny.
- Sharon in Oregon fights daily for rural America and ranchers in particular.
- Mona in Montana is devoting her life to saving American freedoms.
- Sylvia in New York spends much of her time fighting growing government oppression of animal owners.
- Gloria and Cindy in Washington state work to maintain state responsiveness to rural citizen’s needs as urban constituencies try to oppress their rural cousins as happens in Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and too many other states.
- Roni and Kimmi in Colorado work ceaselessly to match defensible scientific knowledge with the wild assertions of radicals with hidden agendas from global warming to expanding federal landholdings with the secret collusions of extremist groups and government agencies. Hey, hold it. Would the ladies please leave the room while we men talk?
Thanks.
Guys, how come our “few good men” in this fight (and fight it is) are all women? Too many of us have indeed become what that “California Goldilocks-from-the-gym” once rightly referred to as “girly-men”. If we are going to meet our obligation as fathers and defenders we can’t remain in hiding while these women do our work. Thank God we’ve got ‘em but we have to help and this upcoming election is (to quote something I have heard all my life but never has it held such awesome importance as it does today) the most important one in my lifetime.
OK ladies you can come back in.
Reform is needed now or it may be too late. Reform is impossible (I give you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd honchoing financial reform or Snowe, Collins, Graham, and Brown that never met a compromise they didn’t like) with the current flock of incumbents. Help the challengers and let them know what you want them to do about the things that are important to you. If you don’t or can’t, then it (rural living, hunting, fishing, gun rights, ranching, farming, pets, traditions, and way of life, etc) really isn’t worth fighting for and we will just continue to rob each other under the guise of “redistributing wealth” to create the illusion of “progress” (to where?).
The incumbents have the Billions in casino “lobbying” money (to authorize casinos and to stop authorizing casinos too close, per their owners, to existing casinos) to draw on surreptitiously and the reluctance of voters to support new faces or oppose recent changes. Those would-be challengers that would change abuses like The Endangered Species Act need all the help they can get and all of us need to help put them in office or what has become unimaginably bad will become and remain ever more intolerable with inevitable consequences too awful to contemplate.
Stopping Minnesota felons from voting and putting away dangerous bums brandishing truncheons outside Philadelphia voting booths aren’t the only worries we have. Repeal and amendment of a whole host of bad laws must be done and electing honest and committed representatives is the first step.
Jim Beers
18 July 2010
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan,
Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net
