The Persecution of Jeremy Hill

September 6th, 2011

The Persecution of Jeremy Hill by William Norman Grigg.

Jeremy Hill, a father of six whose family lives near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, shot and killed a grizzly bear that threatened his family. The federal government is seeking to imprison him for violating the Endangered Species Act. Idaho Governor Butch Otter wrote a nauseatingly sycophantic letter to someone he insisted on addressing as “The Honorable” Ken Salazar, the federal Secretary of Interior, pleading that the Regime be measured and magnanimous in carrying out its persecution of that innocent man.

“I recognize the federal jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act, but I strongly support the right of individuals to defend themselves and others in such situations,” snivelled Otter. “One of the flaws of the ESA is the premium it places on protecting species at the expense of everything else. Although an individual can protect human safety under the law – as Jeremy felt he was doing – it’s a shame that the Endangered Species Act still does not enable citizens to protect their private property and pets in the same manner.”

That aspect of the ESA is not a “shame,” but rather the predictable and intended result of the measure, which codifies a worldview called “biocentrism” in which human beings are simply one species among many, and individual property rights do not exist. What is shameful, however, is Otter’s continued insistence on posturing as a representative of the people of Idaho, rather than a kennel-fed lapdog who knows the exact length of the leash connecting him to his masters in Washington. Were the Governor a worthier canine specimen, he would recognize this as a time to bare his teeth.

After killing the bear that had invaded his property and endangered his family, Hill contacted the local office of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Two officers were dispatched to examine the bear’s remains, and they certified what should be obvious to people whose minds aren’t cankered with eco-collectivist cant: Hill’s actions were entirely justified and more than a little courageous.

Jack Douglas, the Boundary County Prosecutor, conducted his own inquiry into the shooting and concluded that Hill was “forced to take lethal action” in order to protect his wife and four of the couple’s six children. Only one of the bears was killed, Douglas noted, and Hill “didn’t fire at the retreating bears because they no longer posed a threat.”

This ends the matter. If Butch Otter, who loves to swan around in cowboy attire, had sufficient sand to fill an hourglass, he would inform Salazar that no federal official in the State of Idaho will be permitted to have any contact with Jeremy Hill or any member of his family. He would also inform Commissar Salazar that any federal official who molests or harasses them in any way will be taken into custody and evicted from the state. Otter would then issue instructions to that effect to the Idaho State Police and, if necessary, the Idaho National Guard.

After all, isn’t Otter the same intrepid, independent-minded badass who loves to speak about “nullification” and “interposition” – the same bare-knuckled slab of Rocky Mountain individualism who proudly “nullified” the Obamacare monstrosity in the Gem State?

Well, no – not exactly.

This is the same Village People-grade ersatz buckaroo whose attorney general collaborated with the Obama regime to punish a group of orthopedic surgeons who organized to protest federally imposed price controls on medical treatment.  He’s the same Janus-faced specimen who postures as the indomitable foe of federal meddling in health care – and then proudly announces that he has secured millions of pilfered dollars and is willing to permit Obamacare to operate within Idaho on a “case-by-case basis.”

Given that substantive record, it’s not surprising that Otter, in dealing with the Jeremy Hill case, reacted by tugging on his forelock, rather than thrusting out his chin.

“I would sincerely appreciate your looking into this case and assisting any way you can,” Otter simpered in his letter to Salazar. With the unfailing instinct of a natural collaborator, Otter pointed out that Federal prestige might suffer if the persecution of the Hill family continues. The Feds need “to consider the impacts to grizzly recovery efforts because of Jeremy’s case,” Otter wrote. “There is great public outcry about this issue, and prosecution may further damage community support for recovery efforts.”

Here Otter sought refuge in a familiar collectivist dialectic, treating Hill’s legitimate rights and the illegitimate demands of the federal eco-bureaucracy as if they have comparable moral weight – and implicitly seeking a “compromise” that will minimize the damage done to the victim while protecting the usurped power of the aggressor.  This is unsatisfactory: Any attempt to punish Hill – even to the extent of stealing the time necessary for a preliminary hearing – would be a crime.

If Jeremy Hill had been wearing a government-issued costume, and his “victim” had been an unarmed human being, rather than a federally protected grizzly bear, he would be enjoying a paid vacation rather than facing financial ruin and the prospect of a year in prison. The talismanic phrase “officer safety” would be ritually invoked, officials would perform the appropriate roles in a pantomime of an inquiry, and the entirely predictable ruling of “justified” would be delivered.

In the event that the details of this episode were too well-documented to deny, and sufficiently outrageous to shock the public conscience, a settlement would be paid with money extracted from tax victims, and the offender would be discharged without criminal charges or personal civil liability. That’s how this matter would play out, once again, if Jeremy Hill had been a law enforcement officer who committed an act of criminal homicide, rather than a father who killed a wild predator that threatened his children.

Boundary County, some will recall, is where a wolfpack of hired killers called the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team laid siege to the home of political non-conformist Randy Weaver, murdering Weaver’s teenage son Samuel and his wife, Vicky.  Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who admitted to the killing of Vicky Weaver, was spared federal prosecution under an exotic doctrine described by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as “Supremacy Clause Immunity” – which in practice operates exactly like the discredited “Nuremberg Defense.”

Under this doctrine, according to the Court, the only significant questions were these: Was Horiuchi acting under orders from his superiors, and was the kill-shot justified by “his subjective belief that his actions were necessary and proper”? Once those questions were answered in the affirmative, Horiuchi was immunized from either civil or criminal prosecution.

A few months after handing down that ruling – which devised what dissenting Judge Alex Kozinski memorably denounced as a “007 Standard” for lethal force by federal agents – the Ninth Court partially reversed that decision by acknowledging that the State of Idaho could prosecute Horiuchi for criminal homicide under state laws. Denise Woodbury, an assistant prosecutor from Boundary County, was prepared to prosecute the FBI sniper, but then-incoming county attorney Brett Benson – reacting to pressure from the state government – demurred.

There is no doubt that Jeremy Hill acted in a “necessary and proper fashion.” No human being was harmed as a result of his actions. Yet Lon Horiuchi remains at large, and no doubt collects a federal pension – and Hill may well lose his home and his freedom (whatever that word means for a subject of the detestable Regime that presumes to rule us).

The persecution of Jeremy Hill offers that rarest of things – an opportunity for a government to act in defense of an individual’s rights by interposing itself between the victim and the assailant.

Jeremy Hill is not going to prison. If Otter and the silly little government he heads aren’t willing to interpose on that man’s behalf, there are plenty of us living in Idaho who will.

September 6, 2011

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Copyright © 2011 William Norman Grigg

The ‘Big Oil’ Problem That Wasn’t

April 30th, 2011

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, April 29.—Not so long ago everyone knew oil was flooding Puget Sound. It was like one Exxon Valdez every two years, but it came one drop at a time. You could read about it in state-agency press releases and newspaper stories. You could hear about it on the TV news and in a slick official video produced by the Puget Sound Partnership. Every year the rain washed millions of gallons of oil from roadways and parking lots, and it trickled into the sound and killed the fish.

Green groups stormed the Legislature and demanded a big new tax on oil refiners. Labor unions and local governments lined up right behind them, and alarmed legislators rushed to sign the bill. They said oil needed to pay its fair share, even if it meant the bill would actually go to every Washington resident who drives a car and buys gasoline. It was the right thing to do. Right?

Wrong. Turns out the Department of Ecology made an embarrassing mistake in a study in 2007, wildly overestimating the amount of oil that reaches the sound in stormwater. The biggest environmental cause of the last decade had only a nodding relationship to fact. And when you consider all the political hoopla over the issue, all the frantic lobbying in the hallways of the Capitol, all the angry phone calls and emails that poured into legislators’ offices over the last couple of years – it becomes an astounding story. Ecology started owning up to the problems two years ago, but the Legislature never knew and the debate went on.

more…http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/9063-the_%C3%ABbig_oil%C3%AD_problem_that_wasn%C3%ADt_%C3%B1_mistaken_department_of_ecology_study_was_basis_for_three_year_stormwater_crusade.htm

Economists in the Wild — The American Magazine

April 29th, 2011

Far from damaging brains and killing seals, applying basic economics to the environment preserves it.The industrial revolution that began about 200 years ago has changed humanity’s relation to, and attitudes about, nature completely—and sometimes it has generated new views about God and nature, such as from the Transcendentalists of the 19th century. In the first half of the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville reflected that in America, civilization ended where the wilderness began; life along the frontier was one of “wretchedness,” and the wilderness itself generally “impenetrable.” To de Tocqueville, the scattered frontier settlers represented “an ark of civilization in the middle of an ocean of leaves.”i How different from the Puritans’ “errand into the wilderness” of the 17th century, or de Tocqueville’s rendering of the American frontier, is the Transcendentalist attitude toward the wilderness that quickly emerged along with industry, as best expressed in William Wordsworth’s poem:One impulse from a vernal woodMay teach you more of man,Of moral evil and of goodThan all the sages can.ii

via Economists in the Wild — The American Magazine.

Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property « State of Innovation

April 14th, 2011

Here are three easy questions for Libertarians, Socialists, and Economists to determine if a right is a monopoly or a property right.

1) Does the right arise because the person created something?

Creation is the basis of all property rights.  The law is just recognizing the reality that the person is the creator and without that person the creation would not exist.  This is consistent with Locke’s Natural Rights and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

2) If someone else was the creator would they have received the right in the creation?

This ensures that the right does not arise from political favoritism.

3) Is the right freely alienable?

Freely alienable means that right can be sold, transferred, divided, leased, etc.  This is a key feature of property rights.

Let’s see how this applies to some common property rights, some monopolies, and rent seeking systems.

More at:

Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property « State of Innovation.

The Constitution and Property Rights – Tenth Amendment Center

April 5th, 2011

It is sometimes suggested that the Founders did not consider property rights important because the term “property” was mentioned only once in the Constitution.

The truth is that the Founders were concerned about a range of human values, but property rights were high on their list. Their Constitution and Bill of Rights protected property in many ways:

* The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

The Constitution and Property Rights – Tenth Amendment Center.

Residents win $2.5M settlement after blaming Seattle for floods

March 26th, 2011

They claimed the city chose to let their homes flood instead of fix the problem. The city admits no wrongdoing in the settlement.The residents across a two block region of the neighborhood said they would get a gush of water pouring into their home every time a severe storm hit.For Grace Stewart, it’s a hassle she’s been dealing with for decades.”I’m mad, I’m very mad,” she said.

via Residents win $2.5M settlement after blaming Seattle for floods.

Central Planning

July 26th, 2010

Hippodamus of Miletus was a Greek architect of the 5th century BC. He was the first practitioner of urban central planning. His first project was the city of Miletus, an ancient city on the western coast of Anatolia (in what is now the Aydin Province of Turkey), near the mouth of the Maeander River. The site was inhabited since the Bronze Age. It is first mentioned in Hittite records as Millawanda. In the time of Hittite king Mursili II (ca. 1320 BC), Millawanda became a bridgehead for the expansion of the Mycenean Greeks in Asia Minor. Miletus was an important center of philosophy and science, producing such men as Thales (who Aristotle called the founder of natural philosophy), Anaximander and Anaximenes. It was where Hecataeus invented geography. It was destroyed by the Persians in 494 BCE, after they had defeated the navy of the Ionian Greeks at Lade. Miletus was rebuilt on a promontory, north of the old town. The gridiron plan of the new town, designed by the Hippodamus, became the standard for urban planning. One photograph that accompanies this article shows a model of the rebuilt city; the other shows how it looks now.

A cynic might say that the two photos are proof that good central planners can indeed reverse growth and recreate functioning wetlands.

Most central planners would have you think that their profession was recently created and has newly invented “smart growth” and “sustainable development” and “livable cities.” The truth is that the problems that they would like you to think that only they can fix are the results of previous plans by central planners.

They wring their hands and beat their breasts because those who live in suburbia must drive long distances to work, shop, recreate, and worship. Do they think we are so dumb that we do not know it was the zoning forced by central planners and their political supporters that prevented all those types of use in suburbia? Perhaps it is they who are too dumb to be in charge of the current “smart growth” experiment that will cause all the problems for the next generation of central planners.

King County DDES is systematically removing all uses except housing and hobby farming (mostly horses) in the RA zones of rural King County and calling it growth management. King County staff routinely call the RA zones “residential area,” not “rural agricultural.” Homes on five-acre lots (the RA zone minimum) where people sleep and then commute to their job in the city is the definition of suburban sprawl. Rural to me (born in South Dakota) is where you can live and work on the same ground. If you don’t want an “economy” sullying where you sleep, buy a home in a subdivision with strong covenants instead of moving to the country and trying to change your neighbors uses.

Smart growth proponents cry endlessly about expensive infrastructure outside the Urban Growth Line while forcing the sales tax dollars of rural residents into the cities so they can afford their infrastructure. Meanwhile residents of unincorporated King County pay a property tax rate of 14.23585 compared to Kirkland at 9.99742 or Mercer Island at 8.60698 or Medina at 7.91028 or even Seattle at 12.18121.

The following quote is from an article “Smart Growth, Open Space & Farm Land” by Smart Growth America, a coalition of major Smart Growth organizations. “Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies conducted in more than 83 communities show that owners of farm, forest and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain on municipal coffers: It costs local governments more to provide services to homeowners than residential landowners pay in property taxes.”

It turns out that “saving farms and forests” is just a Machiavellian scheme to reduce the taxes of city folks. We couldn’t possibly provide rural folks some of the services for which they are taxed!

Taking, Nuisance, or Theft?

April 7th, 2010

I originally wrote this during the heat of debate over the King County CAO amendments. It is still applicable as the rest of the state bears the brunt of their own CAOs and Shoreline Master Plans.

There are two broad principals of law in the United States under which government may take or restrict the use of private property. Government may take private property for public benefit but must, in turn, compensate the owner of the property for its value. Government may also take or restrict the use of property via its police powers to regulate nuisances.

Just as a property owner possesses rights to use his property, he also holds rights to prevent others from using their land in a manner that harms him or his property. “Nuisance” describes a situation in which one landowner is using his property in a way that unreasonably limits the use of his neighbor’s land or directly harms his neighbor. A “private nuisance” interferes with a relatively small number of people in their use of land. For example, if one neighbor plays her radio very loudly, especially during times that others sleep, that may constitute a private nuisance. A “public nuisance” causes distress to a large number of persons (an entire neighborhood or community) in the use of their land. For example, a cement factory, which discharges large amounts of smoke and dust, may amount to a public nuisance. Under the police power a court of equity with proper legislative authorization can assume jurisdiction to abate a nuisance.

It is difficult to determine which of these two concepts is being employed in these proposed ordinances. On one hand, we are told that “Best Available Science” says we must put these restrictions in place for the public benefits of cleaner water and improved habitat for wildlife. We are told we must limit sprawl to  reduce the costs of providing services in the rural areas. If a court agrees that those are worthwhile public benefits, then government is required to compensate the owners. We would never allow government to simply take any other type of property (medicine, clothing, bricks and mortar) because it was to be used for some public benefit. Why do we even think of it when talking about even more valuable land uses?

On the other hand, can we really call this a preemptive injunction against “public  nuisance” use of rural properties? Remember that nuisance requires that one neighbor’s use of her property must interfere unreasonably with a neighbor’s use of her property or directly harm her. The ordinances as written would have us believe that rural landowners’ use of more than 35% of their property interferes with the reasonable use of their properties by urban landowners. Using that logic, if anyone has a legitimate action based on their neighbors’ overuse of property, it is the rural property owners. Perhaps the science being touted as “Best Available” would best be used to enjoin urban property owners from the continued destruction of our environment by overclearing.

Mixing these two separate legal concepts may seem to give the urban members of the King County Council the opportunity to obtain benefits for their urban constituents without those constituents having to pay anything, but that is not the case. Doing so is neither legal nor moral. It is simply theft, and serves only to broaden the conflict between the urban and rural residents of King County.

What the Heck is a Distractor?

March 31st, 2010

Anyone who has ever taken a multiple-choice exam has experience with distractors. Every question has one or more answers that look good, appear to be logical and just feel right. But they are wrong. Students that don’t really understand the question will choose them every time. Only those with in-depth knowledge of the subject can resist them and choose the correct answer. The teacher is thus able to minimize the chance that students will guess the correct answer.
Politicians have traditionally been the grand masters of using distractors. They say one thing but do another while we are distracted by their rhetoric. Many people erroneously attribute the Law of Unintended Consequences to laws that really work just as intended but were promoted using good distractors thus leading people to think the distractor was actually signed into law. Even politicians with honorable intentions but slow reading skills get hoodwinked into voting for distractors because they don’t read what they are voting for.
The radical environmentalists are giving the politicians a run for their money though. (Yes, I know it is really our money!) They have a whole litany of distractors that they have inculcated into our brains. They range from little green lies to great green whoppers but they are so well crafted and repeated so often that most folks treat them as proven theories. Meanwhile, the real agendas slide in the back door on the coattails of sympathetic or gullible politicians. Ever heard of the “Salmon Recovery Plan?” It makes Bill Clinton’s firing of a couple cruise missiles at an aspirin factory to get us to forget about Monica—what the heck was her name—pale in comparison. We don’t even think about the billions of dollars subsidizing commercial salmon fishing.
If you want to know what is really going on in our world, get better at spotting and ignoring distractors. They are everywhere.

Buffer, Buffer, Who gets the Buffer?

March 28th, 2010

As you listen to your favorite practitioner of the Great Green Lie extol the virtues of ever larger buffers on your 5 or 10 or 15 acres, please keep the following photos in mind. The buffer on the stream in unincorporated King County is 300 feet from the edge of the wetland that gets bigger every year.

Salmon bearing stream in Unincorporated King County – May Creek

Best Salmon Bearing Stream in Bellevue – Kelsey Creek

Salmon bearing stream in Renton – Honey Creek

It runs in a pipe under the Albertson’s parking lot!

For the supposed good of all, rural folks are forced to minimize their density, uses, and value while the urban folks are forced to maximize their density, uses, and value to the displeasure of both. The constitution says that property taken for the use of all has to be paid for. Even the US Supreme Court agreed in Kelo that property taken and given to private interests has to be paid for. Environmental restrictions applied to those who have taken the best care of their environment while those who have turned their environment into concrete get a bye is simple theft—not “Smart Growth.”

If we all had to pay for Gang Green’s foolishness, taxpayers might demand a constructive prioritization of projects instead of just making a rural minority pay the costs so that they can feel all warm and fuzzy while destroying where they live.