The matter of Psychological Warfare

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Stephen L. Wilmeth

Stephen L. Wil­meth

Tyranny of the Crown

The mat­ter of Psy­cho­log­i­cal War­fare

Per­vert­ed LawsAthinking cowboy bw

Two years ago we watched with alarm and dread as the EPA case played out against the Ida­ho cou­ple attempt­ing to build their dream house on the Priest Lake shore. Uni­lat­er­al­ly, the EPA deter­mined the lot the cou­ple had pur­chased was a wet­land. They moved against the cou­ple, and, not only issued a cease and desist order, but set the penal­ty for non­com­pli­ance … $37,500 per day.

Fur­ther, they declared no judi­cial review of the agency’s deci­sion would be allowed.

In the Ida­ho case, how­ev­er, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the argu­ment. They sided with the cou­ple. In a 9–0 judg­ment, they spanked the Wash­ing­ton bureau­crats that endeav­ored to inflict such an action through an arbi­trary admin­is­tra­tive edict. The jus­tices made it abun­dant­ly clear EPA admin­is­tra­tors are held to the same law as the rest of us. Cer­tain­ly, the fed­er­al agency should have learned its les­son.

His­to­ry now indi­cates the agency sim­ply took the bump in stride and pressed for­ward. In Louisiana, the names can be changed and the land use can be altered from a home site to a land­fill, but the same tyran­ni­cal agency abuse is being car­ried out. In this case, relief sought through the 5th Court of Appeals was denied. The court has joined against cit­i­zen­ry by sanc­tion­ing the agency’s action.

When it comes to label­ing wet­lands, the EPA remains the … judge, jury, and enforcer.

The size of the jug­ger­naut

It is enlight­en­ing to review the scope of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.

Grant­ed, not each of the unelect­ed bureau­crats run­ning the var­i­ous units are attempt­ing to rewrite the Clean Water Act as is their EPA coun­ter­part, but they are bound to make sure their fief­doms endure.

We shall count gov­ern­ment agen­cies as they are set forth alpha­bet­i­cal­ly. There are a whop­ping 53 com­mis­sions, admin­is­tra­tions, agen­cies, ser­vices, divi­sions, depart­ments or bureaus list­ed under ‘N’. There are 34 ‘A’s and 45 ‘C’s. There are 25 ‘U’s and 49 ‘F’s.

To the great relief of this review­er, there were no ‘X’, ‘Y’, or ‘Z’ inclu­sions, but there is a mega-cadre of gov­ern­ment enti­ties that can write inven­tive reg­u­la­to­ry demands that courts, like the 5th or 9th Cir­cuits, more often than not rule as law.

A total of 471 gov­ern­men­tal enti­ties have the author­i­ty to tweak, manip­u­late, and inter­pret their man­dates under their respon­si­bil­i­ty to imple­ment law. If we don’t think there are dan­ger­ous impli­ca­tions there­in, San­ta Claus tru­ly exists.

These folks can­not even be fired.

We have learned in the VA scan­dal that the bureau­crat wrong­do­ers can­not be ter­mi­nat­ed unless the process is run through an admin­is­tra­tive law judge. Nor­mal cit­i­zens don’t get that same con­sid­er­a­tion. In fact, only ter­ror­ists and pris­on­ers get the same man­dat­ed pro­tec­tions as do gov­ern­ment bureau­crats.

There are no man­dat­ed pro­tec­tions for our rights and priv­i­leges. It remains scan­dalous.

In fact, it is …tyran­ni­cal.

The assault in our midst

A neigh­bor ranch­er and I talked on the phone this morn­ing.

The ranch­er told me an unfa­mil­iar vehi­cle had dri­ven into her yard this past week­end, turned around and drove off across her pas­ture. She imme­di­ate­ly fol­lowed and stopped the car ask­ing is she could offer some assis­tance. The dri­ver indi­cat­ed he was unaware the land was pri­vate­ly owned.

On fur­ther inquiry, the per­son divulged he was an arche­ol­o­gist, and he was on a mis­sion. He was look­ing for rock out­crop­pings where he was seek­ing indi­ca­tions of past buf­fa­lo pres­ence. He assured the ranch­er he could detect such pres­ence by ‘rubs’ on the rocks!

If you are smil­ing, you must real­ize this is the sci­ence of which land des­ig­na­tion are being craft­ed and poli­cies that will be writ­ten. This will be the sci­ence of record, because we cer­tain­ly don’t have any rebut­tal to offer the hon­or­able judge in some future court action. Our inven­to­ry of sci­en­tif­ic buf­fa­lo rub indi­ca­tion is nonex­is­tent. In fact, we don’t even have sound sci­ence to dif­fer­en­ti­ate between Bos tau­rus or indi­cus rubs from those of mere Bison bison.

Their sci­ence will pre­vail and it is being for­mu­lat­ed in a con­trolled mea­sure every day.

The neigh­bor ranch­er has a huge stake in these find­ings. In fact, she is one of the ranch wives that were fea­tured in Range Mag­a­zine sev­er­al years ago in an arti­cle enti­tled “Women of the Potril­los”. In that arti­cle, those ladies dis­cussed the mat­ter of secu­ri­ty they faced every day as bor­der ranch wives. Their safe­ty, the safe­ty of their hus­bands, fam­i­lies, and all Amer­i­cans was dis­cussed with the hope the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment would halt any action declar­ing anoth­er restrict­ed access land des­ig­na­tion along the bor­der. The fact the Juarez Car­tel con­trols the ille­gal cross traf­fic in the large rur­al area where their fam­i­lies ranch was the issue, but, in the end, it was for naught. The state’s sen­a­tors, the pro­gres­sive wilder­ness sup­port­ers, and mon­ey that affords some unknown scratch spe­cial­ist to search for buf­fa­lo rubs made it hap­pen.

Pres­i­dent Oba­ma signed a pres­i­den­tial procla­ma­tion on May 21, 2014 mak­ing 575,000 acres of that sov­er­eign ter­ri­to­ry a bor­der nation­al mon­u­ment. It couldn’t be done leg­isla­tive­ly, but it got done. It couldn’t be done over an eight year peri­od with con­stant fear of reprisals, end­less debate, agi­ta­tion and vil­i­fi­ca­tion, but it could be done by the stroke of a pen.

The out­come, how­ev­er, is no dif­fer­ent from the myr­i­ad of sim­i­lar assaults on local cus­toms and cul­ture. It is the same for the folks fac­ing the wolf rein­tro­duc­tions, the land own­ers in Ida­ho and Louisiana, or any num­ber of oth­er sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tions.

Just change the names … they are all symp­to­matic of the same fed­er­al jug­ger­naut.

Psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare

Con­di­tion­al­ly, fed­er­al actions that affect local land use must be pre­ced­ed by an Envi­ron­men­tal Impact State­ment (EIS).

The men­tion of ‘con­di­tion­al­ly’ is not­ed because the pres­i­dent is appar­ent­ly exempt from fol­low­ing fed­er­al law in using his pen to cre­ate mil­lions of acres of nation­al mon­u­ment. In fact, it would have been quite inter­est­ing to wit­ness the pub­lic dis­play if the scope of the May 21 sign­ing had been the entire state of New Mex­i­co rather than just the 575,000 acres of fed­er­al, state and pri­vate lands along the bor­der in Dona Ana Coun­ty that the major­i­ty of the world could care less about.

Indeed, what is the dif­fer­ence in 320, 575,000 or 22 mil­lion acres in the face of a pro­gres­sive agen­da action with­out leg­is­la­tion … with­out the true will of the peo­ple?

This mat­ter is set forth to dis­cuss why an EIS is required. Many things are explic­it in such a study, but, specif­i­cal­ly, gov­ern­ment actions must be direct­ed to deter­mine how they affect local com­mu­ni­ties as fol­lows:

  1. Changes in pub­lic health and safe­ty must be antic­i­pat­ed.
  2. Com­mu­ni­ty dis­rup­tion and dis­in­te­gra­tion must be guard­ed against.
  3. Dis­place­ment of com­mu­ni­ty facil­i­ties must be deter­mined and set forth.
  4. Changes to social inter­ac­tions and fam­i­ly ties must be min­i­mized and pro­tect­ed.
  5. Impacts on minori­ties and low income pop­u­la­tions must be gauged.
  6. Changes in the abil­i­ty to pro­vide men­tal health ser­vices, law enforce­ment respons­es, and changes in the com­mu­ni­ty tax base must assessed and fixed.

Not a sin­gle one of these mat­ters was hon­ored, pre­scribed, or offered in the marathon of men­tal anguish forced upon the 90 fam­i­lies impact­ed by the place­ment of ranch invest­ments into this mon­u­ment plan. They were not just aban­doned. They were ignored and removed from any objec­tive attempt to min­i­mize the impact to their lives. The sen­a­tors who engi­neered the plan, retired sen­a­tor Jeff Binga­man, Tom Udall (D-NM), and Mar­tin Hein­rich (D-NM) not only failed to rec­og­nize the immen­si­ty of the con­se­quences, they demon­strat­ed no incli­na­tion that such man­dat­ed require­ments be dis­cussed.

It is time to describe their actions and oth­ers the gov­ern­ment has allowed to hap­pen.

It is psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare aimed pur­pose­ly and dis­crim­i­nate­ly against Amer­i­cans who stand in the way of the envi­ron­men­tal agen­da.

Even NEPA sets forth that men­tal stress is a sig­nif­i­cant fac­tor and co-equal to phys­i­cal health when eval­u­at­ing local health and safe­ty issues. Psy­cho­log­i­cal well being of indi­vid­u­als affect dai­ly func­tion­ing in all major life areas such as adap­tive behav­ior, occu­pa­tion effec­tive­ness and self care.

Leg­isla­tive­ly, the gov­ern­ment acknowl­edges that cer­tain dis­abil­i­ties such as PTSD are cre­at­ed psy­cho­log­i­cal con­di­tions. If lead­ers don’t under­stand how this is impact­ing Amer­i­cans at risk, they don’t want to know. Time and again they coor­di­nat­ed efforts not just to dimin­ish the pleas offered by those affect­ed. They revert­ed to char­ac­ter dimin­ish­ment and vil­i­fi­ca­tion.

Law is being per­vert­ed. Cit­i­zens are being assault­ed over inor­di­nate, long peri­ods of time.

Shame on them, and … shame on the Amer­i­can Con­gress that has lost con­trol of its orig­i­nal, con­sti­tu­tion­al pur­pose!

Stephen L. Wil­meth is a ranch­er from south­ern New Mex­i­co. “I am a vic­tim of the psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare waged against the ranch­ers of the Organ Moun­tain Desert Peaks Nation­al Mon­u­ment. I was wronged, but that wrong equates to the out­right loss of rights and priv­i­leges for … every sin­gle Amer­i­can!”.awesterner comments

Wil­meth says the Pres­i­dent is “appar­ent­ly” exempt from NEPANEPA applies to “all agen­cies” and nei­ther the Pres­i­dent, the Con­gress or the Judi­cia­ry are defined as an agency so the law doesn’t apply to them.  Anoth­er instance where the elite are exempt from require­ments foist­ed on every­one else.