It would seem that just about anything that happens in Idaho County involving wolves stirs up a lot of commotion on the internet, and nearly anywhere else you might look. When the county commissioners issued their Wolf Resolution, we suddenly became well known around the country as those “anti-environment rednecks” according to the tree hugging crowd. (For the most part those are the folks that don’t live in areas impacted by either a timber harvest or wolves, and really don’t know anything about them either.) ‘Course the Governor’s efforts to gain local control of the wolf infestation just added fuel to the fire, and now it seems that Idaho is populated by bad guys because we’re not all tree and wolf huggers. Oh-well, I never let the environut’s opinion worry me anyway.
The latest (and rather humorous) installment of the ongoing environmental saga is Sheriff Doug Giddings “.308 SSS Wolf Pack Raffle”, which has generated nearly 700 internet stories in just the last week. If you’re not already aware of it, the Sheriffs Department is raffling off a Winchester model 70 .308 rifle, with the proceeds to benefit the department’s Community Projects Fund. The hysteria comes with the name, the “SSS Wolf Pack Raffle”, and the shovel. Apparently, based on our local “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” joke about the best way to handle wolves, the wolf huggers are somewhat hysterical, and naturally Doug’s the bad guy. The first thing we hear from the environmental community is the plaintive wail that Sheriff Giddings is advocating we violate federal endangered species law by running out and eradicating all those poor misunderstood wolves. For the most part the news articles are being pretty fair about describing what the Sheriffs Dept. is trying to accomplish, and some of them do mention the “Three Ess’s” witticism, explaining that it is a joke after all. The scenario according to many self proclaimed environmental experts is a little different however: “An Idaho sheriff holds a raffle for a .308-caliber rifle and a shovel. He promotes the raffle as the “.308 SSS Wolf Pack Raffle, and he wants us to believe that the SSS stands for “safety, security and survival” in an area where the letters SSS in the wolf-plagued area stand for “shoot, shovel and shut up. Suuuuure that’s what the good sheriff means.” It would appear that these folks can’t take a joke, and misunderstand the semantics involved. “No, we’re not advocating shooting wolves,” Giddings said. “Safety, security and survival, that’s kind of an Idaho County thing. That’s who we are. It’s to get people’s attention. It means something to us up here.” I ‘spect it’s a good thing the model 70 is a bolt action rifle, were it a semi-automatic Doug would probably have the Brady Bunch claiming he was handing out assault weapons!
Anyway, if you happen to be an environut and are all upset by the issue, hear this! First off, I know all three of our County Commissioners, and I know Sheriff Giddings. Adding to that, I attend most of the weekly commission meetings, particularly those that involve wolves in any way, and occasionally I’ll even throw my two-bits worth in. Finally, I have never, ever, heard ANY county official advocate breaking any law from any jurisdiction. Certainly there are laws on the books that aren’t very popular in these parts, but nobody thinks we should just ignore them even if we’d like to. As far as I’m concerned, whoever makes such an accusation definitely needs a Plexiglas belly button so they can see where they’re going! Dave Cadwallader of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Department said it quite well, "We are a state of law abiding citizens…” "We are frustrated, beyond frustrated, but we have to follow the rule of law." Idaho Department of Fish and Game managers no longer perform statewide monitoring of wolves, conduct investigations into illegal killings, provide law enforcement when wolves are poached or participate in the program that responds to livestock depredation. Evidence of wolf poaching is turned over to federal authorities.
Sheriff Giddings said he knew the choice of “SSS” would stir up some interest. It certainly did that, and naturally public interest is something you want if you’re going to run a raffle. Tickets are on sale for $1 each, or 11 for $10, and the drawing is planned for March 8. Money from the raffle will go to a food bank, alcohol and drug awareness programs, and local school equipment fundraisers.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Veterans Day
One of the hazards of writing a weekly column is that no matter what I plan or do, I always seem to be a few days behind the times. So, keeping that in mind…
America’s armed forces, her veterans, and Veterans affairs, are a subject that I quite easily get upset about. Particularly so when I feel that Veterans are being mistreated, or just plain forgotten, in the rush of “politics as usual” in Washington. Locally, I get involved in veterans organizations, and I take part in the Memorial Day and Veterans Day ceremonies. As the high point of Veterans Day a couple of weeks ago, I attended the assembly at Grangeville High School where Pat Sullivan’s gang did their usual fantastic job of honoring our local veterans, reminding everyone that freedom is not free, and that which many Americans take so lightly was paid for with the blood of a veteran. (Thanks kids, this old soldier certainly appreciates your efforts.) As an additional item, I took it upon myself to present the County Commissioners with ‘Buddy Poppies’ on the 10th, as a reminder that the following day (Nov. 11th) was Veterans Day. Being a merciful type guy, I kept my “presentation speech” short; as I’m sure they have better things to do than listen to me rant and rave. For those of you who aren’t familiar with them, “Buddy Poppies” are those small red artificial flowers you’ll often see old soldiers handing out as they solicit donations to aid their less fortunate buddies, American veterans who did not come home whole. They originated shortly after WW I in memory of the poppy fields of Flanders, where so many young soldiers were laid to rest, and they provided a reminder of the terrible cost of that war. Today they are a symbol of the service… and sacrifice… of American veterans of all wars.
We usually celebrate Veterans Day, no less so than Memorial Day, with parades, speeches, civic ceremonies, and what have you. Usually the references are, as they should be, of WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq/Afghanistan. But not much is said about the Cold War unfortunately. No, it was not a declared war, but it could get just as deadly, and it started right after WW II. It included such challenges as the Berlin airlift and the Berlin Wall, the U-2 incident, nearly a hundred US military aircraft shoot-downs, the Cuban missile crisis, the Quemoy / Matsu / Formosa confrontations, the KAL airliner shoot-down, and many, many, other incidents. It finally ended when the Berlin Wall came down and the Evil Empire collapsed. For forty-five years America’s cold warriors stood watch, day and night, over political borders world wide. They served hundreds of feet below the arctic ice aboard nuclear submarines. They stood alert duty at countless fighter bases, bomber bases, and missile silos. They suffered endless hours of boredom at remote radar sites around the world watching the skies for an attack that never came, or perhaps they sailed the stormy seas on seemingly endless patrols. Her warriors stood ceaseless watch over America, never knowing if, or when, the Cold War was going to turn blazingly hot. While they may, or may not, have heard shots fired in anger, they too endured mind-numbing hardship, privation, loneliness, and personal danger. They, more than anyone else, kept the Soviet bear at arms length. They too are veterans, as much so as those who fought our countries better known declared wars.
A veteran is often described as an individual who, at some point in his life, wrote a blank check to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life’. During these two-hundred and forty-three years of our nations’ existence, millions of young Americans have written those checks and worn the uniform, placing themselves between our homeland and war’s desolation. Well over a million of those checks have been cashed in that time, leaving many bright futures cut short, because, for one reason or another, our politicians failed in their duty.
To our elected officials at every level, I’ll say this… The Republic will always produce soldiers who will stand in her defense, risking all, and paying that terrible price, as long as we remain a nation of free men. We form a long and sometimes ragged line stretching through time from Lexington and Concord to Antietam and Appomattox Courthouse, we were at San Juan Hill, the Marne, Chateau-Thierry, and Belleau Wood. We fought at places like Midway, Iwo Jima, Normandy, and in those terrible skies over Berlin. We well remember the blood soaked ground of Pork Chop Hill, Hamburger Hill, the Ia Drang valley, and Khe Sanh. Today our Brothers and Sisters stand fast in Iraq and Afghanistan. We live by the honored motto of West Point; Duty… Honor… Country. We’re immensely proud of our history, and that of our nation. When called, we fight for an ideal, that of America being a nation with freedom and justice for all.
But do not waste our young lives on political theories, notions, or whims. Do not allow vacuous rhetoric, the politics of your election, or those of your particular party to intrude on your decisions, lest you fail your solemn duty. Remember that our lives are, as are those of all Americans, a quite precious treasure, not to be thrown away lightly. When, and after serious consideration, much soul searching, and hopefully prayer, you conclude that we must go to war, we will do your biding, we will fight your battles, we will slay your dragons. But remember too, that if the object is not to win, then the problem is hardly worth risking our lives over. We in our turn only ask that you give us the wherewithal to accomplish our assigned mission, and that you be our guardians in taking every step to avoid unnecessary loss of life, so that we might return home safe and whole.
We, America’s veterans, willingly signed those checks and went in harms way, to buy time. That is, after all, what soldiering is about; buying the precious time for you to correct the political mistakes that brings on war. We signed those checks, we gave it our best, and we paid the butcher’s bill so that you, the leaders of our nation could, in relative peace and safety, sit in your seats of power and give our people and our nation your best. I charge you, never forget all those young lives cut short, and never let that sacrifice and suffering have been in vain.
America’s armed forces, her veterans, and Veterans affairs, are a subject that I quite easily get upset about. Particularly so when I feel that Veterans are being mistreated, or just plain forgotten, in the rush of “politics as usual” in Washington. Locally, I get involved in veterans organizations, and I take part in the Memorial Day and Veterans Day ceremonies. As the high point of Veterans Day a couple of weeks ago, I attended the assembly at Grangeville High School where Pat Sullivan’s gang did their usual fantastic job of honoring our local veterans, reminding everyone that freedom is not free, and that which many Americans take so lightly was paid for with the blood of a veteran. (Thanks kids, this old soldier certainly appreciates your efforts.) As an additional item, I took it upon myself to present the County Commissioners with ‘Buddy Poppies’ on the 10th, as a reminder that the following day (Nov. 11th) was Veterans Day. Being a merciful type guy, I kept my “presentation speech” short; as I’m sure they have better things to do than listen to me rant and rave. For those of you who aren’t familiar with them, “Buddy Poppies” are those small red artificial flowers you’ll often see old soldiers handing out as they solicit donations to aid their less fortunate buddies, American veterans who did not come home whole. They originated shortly after WW I in memory of the poppy fields of Flanders, where so many young soldiers were laid to rest, and they provided a reminder of the terrible cost of that war. Today they are a symbol of the service… and sacrifice… of American veterans of all wars.
We usually celebrate Veterans Day, no less so than Memorial Day, with parades, speeches, civic ceremonies, and what have you. Usually the references are, as they should be, of WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq/Afghanistan. But not much is said about the Cold War unfortunately. No, it was not a declared war, but it could get just as deadly, and it started right after WW II. It included such challenges as the Berlin airlift and the Berlin Wall, the U-2 incident, nearly a hundred US military aircraft shoot-downs, the Cuban missile crisis, the Quemoy / Matsu / Formosa confrontations, the KAL airliner shoot-down, and many, many, other incidents. It finally ended when the Berlin Wall came down and the Evil Empire collapsed. For forty-five years America’s cold warriors stood watch, day and night, over political borders world wide. They served hundreds of feet below the arctic ice aboard nuclear submarines. They stood alert duty at countless fighter bases, bomber bases, and missile silos. They suffered endless hours of boredom at remote radar sites around the world watching the skies for an attack that never came, or perhaps they sailed the stormy seas on seemingly endless patrols. Her warriors stood ceaseless watch over America, never knowing if, or when, the Cold War was going to turn blazingly hot. While they may, or may not, have heard shots fired in anger, they too endured mind-numbing hardship, privation, loneliness, and personal danger. They, more than anyone else, kept the Soviet bear at arms length. They too are veterans, as much so as those who fought our countries better known declared wars.
A veteran is often described as an individual who, at some point in his life, wrote a blank check to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life’. During these two-hundred and forty-three years of our nations’ existence, millions of young Americans have written those checks and worn the uniform, placing themselves between our homeland and war’s desolation. Well over a million of those checks have been cashed in that time, leaving many bright futures cut short, because, for one reason or another, our politicians failed in their duty.
To our elected officials at every level, I’ll say this… The Republic will always produce soldiers who will stand in her defense, risking all, and paying that terrible price, as long as we remain a nation of free men. We form a long and sometimes ragged line stretching through time from Lexington and Concord to Antietam and Appomattox Courthouse, we were at San Juan Hill, the Marne, Chateau-Thierry, and Belleau Wood. We fought at places like Midway, Iwo Jima, Normandy, and in those terrible skies over Berlin. We well remember the blood soaked ground of Pork Chop Hill, Hamburger Hill, the Ia Drang valley, and Khe Sanh. Today our Brothers and Sisters stand fast in Iraq and Afghanistan. We live by the honored motto of West Point; Duty… Honor… Country. We’re immensely proud of our history, and that of our nation. When called, we fight for an ideal, that of America being a nation with freedom and justice for all.
But do not waste our young lives on political theories, notions, or whims. Do not allow vacuous rhetoric, the politics of your election, or those of your particular party to intrude on your decisions, lest you fail your solemn duty. Remember that our lives are, as are those of all Americans, a quite precious treasure, not to be thrown away lightly. When, and after serious consideration, much soul searching, and hopefully prayer, you conclude that we must go to war, we will do your biding, we will fight your battles, we will slay your dragons. But remember too, that if the object is not to win, then the problem is hardly worth risking our lives over. We in our turn only ask that you give us the wherewithal to accomplish our assigned mission, and that you be our guardians in taking every step to avoid unnecessary loss of life, so that we might return home safe and whole.
We, America’s veterans, willingly signed those checks and went in harms way, to buy time. That is, after all, what soldiering is about; buying the precious time for you to correct the political mistakes that brings on war. We signed those checks, we gave it our best, and we paid the butcher’s bill so that you, the leaders of our nation could, in relative peace and safety, sit in your seats of power and give our people and our nation your best. I charge you, never forget all those young lives cut short, and never let that sacrifice and suffering have been in vain.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Socialism's back
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." --Thomas Aquinas
Socialism marches on in America, despite the wishes of our citizenry expressed at the ballot box, despite the results of opinion polls too numerous to mention, and despite the vivid lessons of history.
Karl Heinrich Marx was a well educated German philosopher (and budding communist revolutionary), whose ideas played a significant role in the development of modern communism and socialism. Marx published his thoughts in 1848, and summarized his approach to society, the economy, and politics in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto. It reads: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx argued that capitalism, like all previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction. As capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would eventually replace capitalism. The end result would be a stateless, classless society called communism. In his characteristic turgid prose, Marx determined that the means of production and exchange owned by the middle classes was highly unfair to the working classes. From this, he concluded that revolution was inevitable, and from that, once everything was owned by the people and that all work would be evenly shared, world-wide peace and niceness would result. (I wonder what he thought when, instead of armed rebellion against the “bosses”, labor unions arose, and started getting a fair shake for the working stiff.)
Unfortunately for us, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and a lot of other wanna-be communists decided that Karl’s theoretically necessary revolution would need some assistance, and the world was soon faced with the problems brought about by the rise of the USSR. Under Lenin the USSR was an interesting (although somewhat bloody) social experiment and a minor annoyance to the rest of the world. When Stalin assumed power, things changed. The planned (and command) economy did, with a lot of help from the despised capitalist world, turn Russia into an industrial economy of sorts. But “supply” (the basis of every successful economy in history) never kept up with “demand”. As I understand it, by 1960 the Soviet standard of living had yet to reach the level Russians enjoyed in 1916, the eve of the Russian revolution! Stalin demanded heavy industry as a demonstration of Soviet Power, forgetting that heavy industry is a luxury of the economically well developed nations… there’s little nutritional value in armored combat vehicles and battleships, and they make lousy agricultural tractors. The mad effort to catch up with and surpass the capitalist west cost the USSR millions of lives and untold human suffering. Eventually it also brought about the downfall of socialism’s showpiece. Now the showpiece of capitalism is trying to become a socialist nation.
Apparently our home-grown intellectuals don’t believe what they can see with their own eyes. Marxism and its associated government control of every part of social, economic, and industrial life has failed miserably everywhere it’s been tried, and still our countries progressive “leaders” insist that “government can do a better job”! Hey guys, every socialist nation in history has collapsed, changed their ways, or wound up in abject poverty! But the folks in Washington are, unfortunately, still trying to follow the game plan found in The Communist Manifesto. So far they’ve made a mockery of civil law unless they can use it to enforce “their” will on the rest of us. They are trying to convert our Constitution into so much waste paper. The Bill of Rights is completely ignored, and with the Dept. of Homeland Security they’ve turned us into a police state. The practice of one’s religion (unless it’s Islamic), has nearly become a violation of federal law. We’re taxed unmercifully, and “who knows where the money goes”. Now we have ObamaCare, and we’re taxed… “Fined” if we fail to purchase government approved medical insurance. Cap-and-trade is dead and buried I’m told… but I’ll bet a dollar to a stale donut that version 2 is waiting in the wings.
Within the notorious “individual mandate” of ObamaCare lies a grand opportunity for government. As it now stands, anyone can be forced to buy any specified product for any reason. Corporations can quit wasting their money on advertising and political fund raising while the Federal Government could balance the budget on the fines people would have to pay to get out of a purchase they don't want.
According to the Wall Street Journal, we may have to start paying for grossly inefficient wind or solar energy schemes, even if we don't have access to them! The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission apparently has a plan to spread out the costs for the transmission lines to bring wind and solar projects to the national grid. A price likely to top $160 billion, and US residents will have to pay the utility bills even if they don't even use the lines! Since Mr. Edison’s magic lamp first went commercial, users would pay for the service, and if you didn’t use it, you didn’t pay for it. But that is changing under socialism. The individual mandate removes “any meaningful limit on Congress’ power to regulate its citizens under the Commerce Clause.” The clause has already been used to capture any activity that might conceivably involve a transfer of power across state lines. Forcing individuals to buy anything inflates Congressional power to “a general police power, all but eliminating the constitutional distinction between federal and state regulatory authority in our federal union.”
Yet another gem from the dank, dark chambers of the Federal Department of Nefarious Plots and Plans… a secret Bureau of Land Management discussion paper leaked to Senator Jim DeMint and Rep. Rob Bishop labeled “Internal Draft — NOT FOR RELEASE,” confirms the federal government’s desire for physical enlargement. BLM advocates enlarging federal landholdings, and “acquiring parcels adjacent to its current holdings…” This mob of environuts argue “Should the legislative process not prove fruitful… BLM would recommend that the Administration consider using the Antiquities Act to designate new National Monuments by Presidential Proclamation.” Which means that if Congress fails to grab even more federal acreage, Mr. Obama should grab it by decree. The BLM lists “Treasured Landscapes” representing approximately 12.85 million federal acres that would shift from mixed-use to virtually untouchable status. They also cite prospective “land-rationalization” efforts to nationalize at least 1.8 million acres. And what do “we the people” get? Even more high dollar failed federal stewardship, and even less access to OUR federal lands.
Is it time to start screaming at our congressional representatives yet?
Socialism marches on in America, despite the wishes of our citizenry expressed at the ballot box, despite the results of opinion polls too numerous to mention, and despite the vivid lessons of history.
Karl Heinrich Marx was a well educated German philosopher (and budding communist revolutionary), whose ideas played a significant role in the development of modern communism and socialism. Marx published his thoughts in 1848, and summarized his approach to society, the economy, and politics in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto. It reads: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx argued that capitalism, like all previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction. As capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would eventually replace capitalism. The end result would be a stateless, classless society called communism. In his characteristic turgid prose, Marx determined that the means of production and exchange owned by the middle classes was highly unfair to the working classes. From this, he concluded that revolution was inevitable, and from that, once everything was owned by the people and that all work would be evenly shared, world-wide peace and niceness would result. (I wonder what he thought when, instead of armed rebellion against the “bosses”, labor unions arose, and started getting a fair shake for the working stiff.)
Unfortunately for us, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and a lot of other wanna-be communists decided that Karl’s theoretically necessary revolution would need some assistance, and the world was soon faced with the problems brought about by the rise of the USSR. Under Lenin the USSR was an interesting (although somewhat bloody) social experiment and a minor annoyance to the rest of the world. When Stalin assumed power, things changed. The planned (and command) economy did, with a lot of help from the despised capitalist world, turn Russia into an industrial economy of sorts. But “supply” (the basis of every successful economy in history) never kept up with “demand”. As I understand it, by 1960 the Soviet standard of living had yet to reach the level Russians enjoyed in 1916, the eve of the Russian revolution! Stalin demanded heavy industry as a demonstration of Soviet Power, forgetting that heavy industry is a luxury of the economically well developed nations… there’s little nutritional value in armored combat vehicles and battleships, and they make lousy agricultural tractors. The mad effort to catch up with and surpass the capitalist west cost the USSR millions of lives and untold human suffering. Eventually it also brought about the downfall of socialism’s showpiece. Now the showpiece of capitalism is trying to become a socialist nation.
Apparently our home-grown intellectuals don’t believe what they can see with their own eyes. Marxism and its associated government control of every part of social, economic, and industrial life has failed miserably everywhere it’s been tried, and still our countries progressive “leaders” insist that “government can do a better job”! Hey guys, every socialist nation in history has collapsed, changed their ways, or wound up in abject poverty! But the folks in Washington are, unfortunately, still trying to follow the game plan found in The Communist Manifesto. So far they’ve made a mockery of civil law unless they can use it to enforce “their” will on the rest of us. They are trying to convert our Constitution into so much waste paper. The Bill of Rights is completely ignored, and with the Dept. of Homeland Security they’ve turned us into a police state. The practice of one’s religion (unless it’s Islamic), has nearly become a violation of federal law. We’re taxed unmercifully, and “who knows where the money goes”. Now we have ObamaCare, and we’re taxed… “Fined” if we fail to purchase government approved medical insurance. Cap-and-trade is dead and buried I’m told… but I’ll bet a dollar to a stale donut that version 2 is waiting in the wings.
Within the notorious “individual mandate” of ObamaCare lies a grand opportunity for government. As it now stands, anyone can be forced to buy any specified product for any reason. Corporations can quit wasting their money on advertising and political fund raising while the Federal Government could balance the budget on the fines people would have to pay to get out of a purchase they don't want.
According to the Wall Street Journal, we may have to start paying for grossly inefficient wind or solar energy schemes, even if we don't have access to them! The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission apparently has a plan to spread out the costs for the transmission lines to bring wind and solar projects to the national grid. A price likely to top $160 billion, and US residents will have to pay the utility bills even if they don't even use the lines! Since Mr. Edison’s magic lamp first went commercial, users would pay for the service, and if you didn’t use it, you didn’t pay for it. But that is changing under socialism. The individual mandate removes “any meaningful limit on Congress’ power to regulate its citizens under the Commerce Clause.” The clause has already been used to capture any activity that might conceivably involve a transfer of power across state lines. Forcing individuals to buy anything inflates Congressional power to “a general police power, all but eliminating the constitutional distinction between federal and state regulatory authority in our federal union.”
Yet another gem from the dank, dark chambers of the Federal Department of Nefarious Plots and Plans… a secret Bureau of Land Management discussion paper leaked to Senator Jim DeMint and Rep. Rob Bishop labeled “Internal Draft — NOT FOR RELEASE,” confirms the federal government’s desire for physical enlargement. BLM advocates enlarging federal landholdings, and “acquiring parcels adjacent to its current holdings…” This mob of environuts argue “Should the legislative process not prove fruitful… BLM would recommend that the Administration consider using the Antiquities Act to designate new National Monuments by Presidential Proclamation.” Which means that if Congress fails to grab even more federal acreage, Mr. Obama should grab it by decree. The BLM lists “Treasured Landscapes” representing approximately 12.85 million federal acres that would shift from mixed-use to virtually untouchable status. They also cite prospective “land-rationalization” efforts to nationalize at least 1.8 million acres. And what do “we the people” get? Even more high dollar failed federal stewardship, and even less access to OUR federal lands.
Is it time to start screaming at our congressional representatives yet?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sorry
I’ve got some catching up to do, and I ‘spect some apologizing as well. I’m kinda late at getting last weeks column posted, mostly because of a serious case of stomach flu. (??) In this case, I was laid low for nearly four days by some sort of bug. I rather felt sick enough to die, and was afraid I wouldn’t! I guess I’ll live, but I wouldn’t wish this stuff on even Mr. Obama… but don’t tempt me to much, particularly in my present mood.
On Nov. 10th, I attended an abbreviated County Commissioners meeting, and presented the Commissioners with VFW Buddy Poppies. This is the mercifully short “speech” I gave ‘em with those Poppies:
“Gentlemen, let me remind you that tomorrow is Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor America’s veterans. These are “Buddy Poppies”, originally a reminder of World War One and the terrible cost of war. Today they are a symbol of all American Veterans.
A veteran is sometimes referred to as an individual who, at some point in his life, wrote a blank check to ‘The United States of America’, for an amount “up to and including my life”. In the two-hundred and forty-three years of our nations’ existence, well over a million of those checks were cashed.
Gentlemen, we willingly wrote those checks, and gave it our best, in order that you, our nations leaders, could sit here in relative peace, and give our people and our country your best. I charge you, always remember those cashed checks, and don’t let us down.”
Must have done alright, ‘cause I didn’t break down and cry, as I so quickly do when we bury another vet, and they play last ‘taps’.
Huh… didn’t get thrown out either.
On Nov. 10th, I attended an abbreviated County Commissioners meeting, and presented the Commissioners with VFW Buddy Poppies. This is the mercifully short “speech” I gave ‘em with those Poppies:
“Gentlemen, let me remind you that tomorrow is Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor America’s veterans. These are “Buddy Poppies”, originally a reminder of World War One and the terrible cost of war. Today they are a symbol of all American Veterans.
A veteran is sometimes referred to as an individual who, at some point in his life, wrote a blank check to ‘The United States of America’, for an amount “up to and including my life”. In the two-hundred and forty-three years of our nations’ existence, well over a million of those checks were cashed.
Gentlemen, we willingly wrote those checks, and gave it our best, in order that you, our nations leaders, could sit here in relative peace, and give our people and our country your best. I charge you, always remember those cashed checks, and don’t let us down.”
Must have done alright, ‘cause I didn’t break down and cry, as I so quickly do when we bury another vet, and they play last ‘taps’.
Huh… didn’t get thrown out either.
Mr. Congressman
The election’s over, and most folks are busily trying to clean up the trash and wreckage that inevitably follows. A good many loosing candidates are sitting around trying to figure out what went wrong, while an equal number of winning candidates are trying to figure out what went right I would suspect. At any rate, there are a lot of folks that were “to busy to get involved” that are now sitting around and wondering just what happened. At any rate, most of us are picking up the assorted “vote for me” signs that clutter our yards, tossing out the excess campaign literature cluttering the place, and thinking “Thank God that’s over”! The politico’s on the other hand (winners and losers alike), are busily thanking their supporters, and starting the planning sessions for the next campaign. I don’t see anything wrong with all this, remembering that it’s been part of the American political scene for the last couple of hundred years. As part of the “thank you” notes passed about I received the following e-mail from Idaho's Sen. Mike Crappo. I think it’s a form letter, as I’m sure that Mike wouldn’t remember talking to me in the past. (Funny, Larry Craig did remember speaking to me previously, on several occasions. Must have been my ugly mug that he remembered.) Anyway, Mike’s note went as follows:
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your help in our success on Election Day! Your active role in my campaign for the U.S. Senate was a big part of why I was able to win the election.
All across America, voters demanded a return to the bedrock conservative principles of limited government, lower taxes, less spending and the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms.
America is the greatest country in the world. We will get her on the right track by working together.
I can't thank you enough for your support of my campaign. I will continue to work hard for Idahoans to ensure America has a limited government and unlimited opportunity.
Thanks!
So Mike, you’re quite welcome even though I didn’t do anything to promote your campaign except grind my teeth at the Obama crowd, but I’m pleased that you won. However, as you look forward to the next six years on the hill, don’t forget why you’re there. Idaho has spoken… Or more accurately, we’ve shouted at Washington that we’ve had quite enough wasteful spending, enough over-regulation, enough vote trading, enough bills that “spread the wealth”, and certainly enough undermining the foundations of our free country. Keep in mind that Harry Reid still suffers from his “god complex”, as the morning after the election he clearly stated that tax cuts “aren’t going to happen”. Perhaps, perhaps not, but we didn’t send you back to the Senate to cooperate or negotiate with either Harry or Mr. Obama on the subject of taxes or spending. Stick to “our” guns, and if the Democrats want to call you guys the “Party of No”, so be it. I for one would rather see the forecast congressional gridlock occur, rather than see Mr. O’s plan to change America go even one step further. I’ll guess that in two years Mr. O will find out the hard way just what most Americans think of his changes, and so will another batch of congressmen who support him!
Nothing in today’s world ranks lower in the public’s esteem than Congress, and you guys are going to have to work overtime turning that around. One on-line news story came up with a pretty good list of things the new Congress might do to win the confidence of Americans, and I’d suggest that the entire Idaho delegation seriously consider them. Some of those suggestions included federal term limits, rescinding ObamaCare, reining in the EPA, and the creation of a bipartisan congressional committee to streamline the government. To those, I’ll add cleaning up the mess Homeland Security is making of our Constitutional rights, straighten out the immigration / illegal alien situation, and rewrite the Endangered Species Act. These are my suggested starting points, and while not everyone will agree with them some common sense changes will at least reassure the American public that they are once again in charge. That’s a pretty full plate I’ll agree, and while I wouldn’t expect to see it all happen in two short years, I would expect to see progress between now and 2012. So guys, don’t just talk about it, DO IT!
With the elections over, a lame-duck Congress comes back to deal with a lot of unfinished business, and the question here is how much they'll get done. Such sessions tend to be unproductive as the losers are in a bad mood and just want to go home; while the winners prefer to wait until their reinforcements arrive in January. But for the moment the Democrats still command a big majority. Mr. O said he would invite both Democratic and GOP leaders to the White House later this month to negotiate, but were I a Republican congressman, I’d remember that as the party in control for the past few years, the Democrats weren’t at all interested in negotiations, instead preferring to enact their legislation despite the stated wishes of the electorate. I don’t really expect to see that policy change over the next few weeks, and a defeated Democratic Congress could use its remaining weeks of post-election power to vote in even more of Barrack Obama's agenda for a "fundamental transformation" of America, particularly with a somewhat vindictive team of Harry and Nancy running the show.
The current Congress returns to a lot of taxing and spending issues, both dear to the Democratic heart. Both parties are ready to address the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31, and none of the 12 current spending bills have passed. Some lawmakers are planning to wrap those 12 spending bills into yet another massive $1.1 trillion catchall bill, and I’d expect to see them include a lot of favored earmarks and pork projects included as well. But they might also consider that the voters did send a message in the election, and some congressmen heard it. The message? "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sen.-elect Rand Paul suggested reducing the size of government, freezing federal hiring, and reducing the federal payroll by 10 percent. "The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year. Let's get them more in line, and let's find savings."
I and many others can agree with him Mike, so perhaps you guys on the hill should seriously consider doing just that, starting with a lot of overpaid elected officials!
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your help in our success on Election Day! Your active role in my campaign for the U.S. Senate was a big part of why I was able to win the election.
All across America, voters demanded a return to the bedrock conservative principles of limited government, lower taxes, less spending and the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms.
America is the greatest country in the world. We will get her on the right track by working together.
I can't thank you enough for your support of my campaign. I will continue to work hard for Idahoans to ensure America has a limited government and unlimited opportunity.
Thanks!
So Mike, you’re quite welcome even though I didn’t do anything to promote your campaign except grind my teeth at the Obama crowd, but I’m pleased that you won. However, as you look forward to the next six years on the hill, don’t forget why you’re there. Idaho has spoken… Or more accurately, we’ve shouted at Washington that we’ve had quite enough wasteful spending, enough over-regulation, enough vote trading, enough bills that “spread the wealth”, and certainly enough undermining the foundations of our free country. Keep in mind that Harry Reid still suffers from his “god complex”, as the morning after the election he clearly stated that tax cuts “aren’t going to happen”. Perhaps, perhaps not, but we didn’t send you back to the Senate to cooperate or negotiate with either Harry or Mr. Obama on the subject of taxes or spending. Stick to “our” guns, and if the Democrats want to call you guys the “Party of No”, so be it. I for one would rather see the forecast congressional gridlock occur, rather than see Mr. O’s plan to change America go even one step further. I’ll guess that in two years Mr. O will find out the hard way just what most Americans think of his changes, and so will another batch of congressmen who support him!
Nothing in today’s world ranks lower in the public’s esteem than Congress, and you guys are going to have to work overtime turning that around. One on-line news story came up with a pretty good list of things the new Congress might do to win the confidence of Americans, and I’d suggest that the entire Idaho delegation seriously consider them. Some of those suggestions included federal term limits, rescinding ObamaCare, reining in the EPA, and the creation of a bipartisan congressional committee to streamline the government. To those, I’ll add cleaning up the mess Homeland Security is making of our Constitutional rights, straighten out the immigration / illegal alien situation, and rewrite the Endangered Species Act. These are my suggested starting points, and while not everyone will agree with them some common sense changes will at least reassure the American public that they are once again in charge. That’s a pretty full plate I’ll agree, and while I wouldn’t expect to see it all happen in two short years, I would expect to see progress between now and 2012. So guys, don’t just talk about it, DO IT!
With the elections over, a lame-duck Congress comes back to deal with a lot of unfinished business, and the question here is how much they'll get done. Such sessions tend to be unproductive as the losers are in a bad mood and just want to go home; while the winners prefer to wait until their reinforcements arrive in January. But for the moment the Democrats still command a big majority. Mr. O said he would invite both Democratic and GOP leaders to the White House later this month to negotiate, but were I a Republican congressman, I’d remember that as the party in control for the past few years, the Democrats weren’t at all interested in negotiations, instead preferring to enact their legislation despite the stated wishes of the electorate. I don’t really expect to see that policy change over the next few weeks, and a defeated Democratic Congress could use its remaining weeks of post-election power to vote in even more of Barrack Obama's agenda for a "fundamental transformation" of America, particularly with a somewhat vindictive team of Harry and Nancy running the show.
The current Congress returns to a lot of taxing and spending issues, both dear to the Democratic heart. Both parties are ready to address the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31, and none of the 12 current spending bills have passed. Some lawmakers are planning to wrap those 12 spending bills into yet another massive $1.1 trillion catchall bill, and I’d expect to see them include a lot of favored earmarks and pork projects included as well. But they might also consider that the voters did send a message in the election, and some congressmen heard it. The message? "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sen.-elect Rand Paul suggested reducing the size of government, freezing federal hiring, and reducing the federal payroll by 10 percent. "The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year. Let's get them more in line, and let's find savings."
I and many others can agree with him Mike, so perhaps you guys on the hill should seriously consider doing just that, starting with a lot of overpaid elected officials!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Morning After
The 2010 mid-term election is over, for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Personally I’m glad it’s done with, as I’m getting almighty tired of trying to write about team Obama and the Democrats without excessively elevating my blood pressure (which my Doctor seems to think is a bad thing). So, until we see what the current Congress is going to do to us in their Lame Duck session, and just how much devilment the new Congress can get into when they take over, I think I’ll just kick back and discuss some political generalities for a change.
Two years ago, the democrats pretty well seized the reins of government in this nation. They grabbed the white house, the senate, and the house, in what they mistakenly assumed was a “mandate” to change our government to something resembling Mr. Obama’s version of a democratic-socialist government. That democratic majority started hitting us with changes well enough, by driving us to the verge of national bankruptcy, cramming “ObamaCare” down our protesting throats, expanding the size of the federal government, and stripping us of many cherished freedoms, all in the name of “the common good”. In reality their 2008 win was more of a voters knee jerk reaction to the faltering policies of the Bush administration than a demand for any massive change. Now, two years later, commentators are speaking of the 2010 “tsunami” (or “landslide”) being a repudiation of those democratic efforts, and I note that many sitting politicians are agreeing with that descriptor. Nothing could be further from the truth! If the Republicans had received a mandate from Tuesday’s midterms, they’d have won a lot more than the House majority! I would hope that they understand this.
The election of 2010, momentous as it was, marks the beginning of a bigger battle — not the end. It presents, in the words of Florida's winning new Senator Rubio, "a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." That is, the party of smaller solutions and less spending rather than some sort of lynch mob angrily cleaning up in Washington. Certainly we need some cleaning, but going at it like the proverbial bull in the china shop isn’t the answer either.
The American voter reset our politics on Tuesday. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is no more, nor is one-party control of the Federal Government. Mr. Obama’s landslide doesn’t exist either, and I rather hope he realizes that simple fact. "Yes, we can" collided head-on with "Oh, no you don't", and the days of shoving things down our throats are about over. Well, if they aren’t over, the new crop of Republicans can be replaced as well, as every one of them had better remember. America woke up this morning with all the same problems we had yesterday, but now we have a good many more possible solutions on deck. And the 2012 presidential election campaign starts today. The voters who flocked to Obama two years ago have turned against his bright ideas, and have elected a wave of new Republicans to Congress, along with trimming the Democratic majority in the Senate to a minimum. As the House seats captured by the GOP climbed toward 60, Democrats could wonder why, but the historic loss of seats captured by the GOP suggests that anger over the government's handling of the economy fed the firestorm. That tsunami was a wave of discontent, nothing more or less than a vote of no confidence in the Democratic powers that be, with their loss in the House being the largest since 1948. Not only did the Republicans seize the House, they also moved it much further to the right, pushed by the anti-tax, anti big government, and certainly anti-compromise members of the Tea Party movement. A leader of the movement, Rand Paul delivered the message in his acceptance speech as the new Kentucky Senator, saying that "I have a message ... that is loud and clear, that does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," Paul promised his supporters "fiscal sanity," and a limited constitutional government, along with balanced budgets. I hope Paul, and our new House can deliver, because the American people are real unhappy with what's been going on in Washington of late. The Tea movement may not have won as spectacularly as many of us had hoped, but the politicians, all of them, had best remember that the movement is still there, still angry, and still quite capable of replacing everybody in Washington if they don’t see a whole lot of improvement in the immediate future. Lord high mucky-muck of the Senate Harry Reid is already indicating that he’s not going to cooperate with a Republican House, or abide with the will of the American people. If that’s the case, Harry, and Mr. O as well, might want to remember that the House controls the purse strings… and yet another group of those democratic senators come up for re-election in two years. (Not a threat Harry, just a promise.)
Exit polls pretty much confirm what we already knew, that eighty-six percent of the voters say they're worried about the direction of the economy, and forty percent say they're worse off financially than they were two years ago. About forty percent also say they support the Tea Party movement. And guess what, they voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed say they're angry, while another forty-seven percent are “merely” dissatisfied. As expected, about half the voters think democratic policies are hurting the country, while fifty-six percent say the government is doing too much interfering in our lives. Those are not promising numbers Mr. Reid. When John Boehner takes the speakers gavel it will seriously change the face of Congress, and result in either gridlock or a somewhat grudging cooperation. Well, at least Mr. O will have will have someone to blame when things skid to a halt! But the activist phase of Mr. Obama's term is over at any rate, and he’ll soon be fighting to preserve his health care plan.
As for the self proclaimed Democratic “majority” in this country, Tom Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, [which] breaks up the foundations of society.” John Adams told us: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our nations founders envisioned us with a republic, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” None of this bodes well for the Peoples Socialist Republic of Amerika, as it’s envisioned by the “progressive” left.
Two years ago, the democrats pretty well seized the reins of government in this nation. They grabbed the white house, the senate, and the house, in what they mistakenly assumed was a “mandate” to change our government to something resembling Mr. Obama’s version of a democratic-socialist government. That democratic majority started hitting us with changes well enough, by driving us to the verge of national bankruptcy, cramming “ObamaCare” down our protesting throats, expanding the size of the federal government, and stripping us of many cherished freedoms, all in the name of “the common good”. In reality their 2008 win was more of a voters knee jerk reaction to the faltering policies of the Bush administration than a demand for any massive change. Now, two years later, commentators are speaking of the 2010 “tsunami” (or “landslide”) being a repudiation of those democratic efforts, and I note that many sitting politicians are agreeing with that descriptor. Nothing could be further from the truth! If the Republicans had received a mandate from Tuesday’s midterms, they’d have won a lot more than the House majority! I would hope that they understand this.
The election of 2010, momentous as it was, marks the beginning of a bigger battle — not the end. It presents, in the words of Florida's winning new Senator Rubio, "a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." That is, the party of smaller solutions and less spending rather than some sort of lynch mob angrily cleaning up in Washington. Certainly we need some cleaning, but going at it like the proverbial bull in the china shop isn’t the answer either.
The American voter reset our politics on Tuesday. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is no more, nor is one-party control of the Federal Government. Mr. Obama’s landslide doesn’t exist either, and I rather hope he realizes that simple fact. "Yes, we can" collided head-on with "Oh, no you don't", and the days of shoving things down our throats are about over. Well, if they aren’t over, the new crop of Republicans can be replaced as well, as every one of them had better remember. America woke up this morning with all the same problems we had yesterday, but now we have a good many more possible solutions on deck. And the 2012 presidential election campaign starts today. The voters who flocked to Obama two years ago have turned against his bright ideas, and have elected a wave of new Republicans to Congress, along with trimming the Democratic majority in the Senate to a minimum. As the House seats captured by the GOP climbed toward 60, Democrats could wonder why, but the historic loss of seats captured by the GOP suggests that anger over the government's handling of the economy fed the firestorm. That tsunami was a wave of discontent, nothing more or less than a vote of no confidence in the Democratic powers that be, with their loss in the House being the largest since 1948. Not only did the Republicans seize the House, they also moved it much further to the right, pushed by the anti-tax, anti big government, and certainly anti-compromise members of the Tea Party movement. A leader of the movement, Rand Paul delivered the message in his acceptance speech as the new Kentucky Senator, saying that "I have a message ... that is loud and clear, that does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," Paul promised his supporters "fiscal sanity," and a limited constitutional government, along with balanced budgets. I hope Paul, and our new House can deliver, because the American people are real unhappy with what's been going on in Washington of late. The Tea movement may not have won as spectacularly as many of us had hoped, but the politicians, all of them, had best remember that the movement is still there, still angry, and still quite capable of replacing everybody in Washington if they don’t see a whole lot of improvement in the immediate future. Lord high mucky-muck of the Senate Harry Reid is already indicating that he’s not going to cooperate with a Republican House, or abide with the will of the American people. If that’s the case, Harry, and Mr. O as well, might want to remember that the House controls the purse strings… and yet another group of those democratic senators come up for re-election in two years. (Not a threat Harry, just a promise.)
Exit polls pretty much confirm what we already knew, that eighty-six percent of the voters say they're worried about the direction of the economy, and forty percent say they're worse off financially than they were two years ago. About forty percent also say they support the Tea Party movement. And guess what, they voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed say they're angry, while another forty-seven percent are “merely” dissatisfied. As expected, about half the voters think democratic policies are hurting the country, while fifty-six percent say the government is doing too much interfering in our lives. Those are not promising numbers Mr. Reid. When John Boehner takes the speakers gavel it will seriously change the face of Congress, and result in either gridlock or a somewhat grudging cooperation. Well, at least Mr. O will have will have someone to blame when things skid to a halt! But the activist phase of Mr. Obama's term is over at any rate, and he’ll soon be fighting to preserve his health care plan.
As for the self proclaimed Democratic “majority” in this country, Tom Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, [which] breaks up the foundations of society.” John Adams told us: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our nations founders envisioned us with a republic, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” None of this bodes well for the Peoples Socialist Republic of Amerika, as it’s envisioned by the “progressive” left.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Vote
The Obama administration is crusading to remake America, as they have said since long before the 2008 election, and despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Bailouts and stimulus have effectively nationalized a large part of American “big business”, while the “health care overhaul” added the entire medical industry to the list. Now, adding to that, the proposed “Card Check” legislation will, for all intents and purposes place the fate of every American business and every employee at the mercy of the Obama Socialism / George Soros / Trade Union Bosses triad! (Understand that I’m not anti-union, but I am opposed to the idea of forcing people to join.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada has been hit hard by falling home prices, foreclosures, and unemployment. But Reid insists that despite his senate leadership post he had "nothing to do" with the economic downturn, contending that the recession was the fault of the Bush administration, and saying "You know that I had nothing to do with the massive foreclosures here," Reid said. "You know that I had nothing to do with these unemployment figures. I tried to rein that in"… Well, perhaps Harry, if you say so. But still, even though President Bush was mightily involved with the bailouts, there were plenty more under Mr. Obama, and Senator Reid was up to his ears in the passage of that unnecessary mess. He did however, save the world, or so he says. That’s right, the highest ranking member of the United States Senate is taking credit for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, also known as the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, and thus personally saved the world economy with his efforts. Humm… Have you heard the term “God Complex” before?
As Mr. Obama swung through Las Vegas to rally support for his buddy Harry, new economic data showed Nevada's jobless rate at 14.4 percent, the worst in the nation. With his usual democratic logic, Harry might call that an improvement, as it’s the first time Nevada unemployment hasn’t increased since January! The numbers are in doubt though, as despite the official claim of nine point something percent of our population being unemployed, some Washington officials are saying that the true number is closer to 17.5%. Add the national debt to those figures, and we’re now in the hole for some $48,000 a head, a figure that’s projected to get a whole lot worse over the next two years. (Thank your grandkids for the next stimulus funded highway project you see, they’re paying for it.) Of late, Congress did not seem to have the time to pass a budget, recessing early to run home and campaign for the mid-term’s. Well, that democratic controlled Congress also missed out on extending the Bush era tax cuts for all of us, which is going to get expensive come April. But they did have the time to propose new pork barrel spending for 2011, with House bills containing almost 3,000 earmarks and Senate bills adding another 3,700 earmarks. Every year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than what’s raised in federal tax revenue. But never fear, led by team Obama, Harry and the Democrats are saving the world… and flushing the United States down the drain while they’re at it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being blamed for blindly following a radical “Big Government, Big Brother” socialist agenda despite the expressed wishes of the American people. Nancy is running a Congress that has allowed warrantless wiretapping, torture, assorted military tribunals, the Patriot Act, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cancellation, and the open-ended war in the Middle East, to go on unabated, despite a history of objection from the American people. Ahh… Nancy does represent those people does she not?
Along with Harry’s God Complex, we have the mind-set of the far left, which, as one commentator said, "Liberals don't think they have any politics. They think they are in a state of nature. Only those who disagree with them are unnatural." That comment tells you just about all you need to know of the cultural and political war in America today. Progressives are supposed to be the “best educated” and most thoughtful among us, but I often wonder… Along with a good many on-line news articles we will find numerous sections devoted to reader comments. Often those comments are well thought out, by readers from both sides of the political spectrum. But by far the majority of the witticisms from the left are more comparable to the tantrums we might expect from angry children who don’t get their way, and have no real reason to object other than they’re not getting their way. They regularly prove the comment that all arguments with liberals take the same course, in that first a liberal will make a ridiculous statement. Then, after proving the liberal statement is stupid, the liberal will try to change the subject. And finally, when all else fails, the liberal will resort to name calling or outright lies. It generally seems to work that way in my view.
Another left wing “statement” that pretty well had this old soldier going ballistic was the comment by Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran. According to Mr. Moran, his opponent in the current election is totally unqualified for the job. Mr. Moran was heard telling a Democratic gathering that his opponent, Republican Patrick Murray, is just another unqualified GOP candidate, and that "What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven't been in office, haven't served or performed in any kind of public service." Moran said that "My opponent is typical, frankly." Well, Okay, that sounds like little more than typical election time posturing and rhetoric. BUT, Mr. Moran’s opponent is a retired Army colonel with 24 years of service that includes combat in Iraq. The idea that such a military record doesn't qualify as "public service" has left a sour taste in Murray's mouth, to say nothing of mine! Col. Murray wrote in reply that "It is unconscionable to me how a member of Congress from a District with so many Veterans, who also sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, could make such shameful and offensive comments about the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform." He added that “This kind of disrespect to our service members not only offends me, but is insensitive to the sacrifices made by our dedicated military families as well." In a typical Dumbocrat response, Mr. Moran told a local news outlet that he simply misspoke, and his constituents know that isn’t what he meant. Huh, more “misunderstanding” of leftist rhetoric I guess, although there seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
We’ve seen how the left operates, and we’ve seen examples of what they plan for our country. Despite the promising numbers of the polls, and the claims that the left is “falling off the cliff”, we haven’t stopped Barrack Obama, and we have not made this country safe. We have not stopped the advance of socialism, and we have not stopped the Democrats from destroying our country. And we, with all our efforts to date, have won nothing, unless we get out and vote on Nov. 2ed, by proving our determination, and putting an end to the left’s goal of totally dominating our country.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada has been hit hard by falling home prices, foreclosures, and unemployment. But Reid insists that despite his senate leadership post he had "nothing to do" with the economic downturn, contending that the recession was the fault of the Bush administration, and saying "You know that I had nothing to do with the massive foreclosures here," Reid said. "You know that I had nothing to do with these unemployment figures. I tried to rein that in"… Well, perhaps Harry, if you say so. But still, even though President Bush was mightily involved with the bailouts, there were plenty more under Mr. Obama, and Senator Reid was up to his ears in the passage of that unnecessary mess. He did however, save the world, or so he says. That’s right, the highest ranking member of the United States Senate is taking credit for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, also known as the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, and thus personally saved the world economy with his efforts. Humm… Have you heard the term “God Complex” before?
As Mr. Obama swung through Las Vegas to rally support for his buddy Harry, new economic data showed Nevada's jobless rate at 14.4 percent, the worst in the nation. With his usual democratic logic, Harry might call that an improvement, as it’s the first time Nevada unemployment hasn’t increased since January! The numbers are in doubt though, as despite the official claim of nine point something percent of our population being unemployed, some Washington officials are saying that the true number is closer to 17.5%. Add the national debt to those figures, and we’re now in the hole for some $48,000 a head, a figure that’s projected to get a whole lot worse over the next two years. (Thank your grandkids for the next stimulus funded highway project you see, they’re paying for it.) Of late, Congress did not seem to have the time to pass a budget, recessing early to run home and campaign for the mid-term’s. Well, that democratic controlled Congress also missed out on extending the Bush era tax cuts for all of us, which is going to get expensive come April. But they did have the time to propose new pork barrel spending for 2011, with House bills containing almost 3,000 earmarks and Senate bills adding another 3,700 earmarks. Every year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than what’s raised in federal tax revenue. But never fear, led by team Obama, Harry and the Democrats are saving the world… and flushing the United States down the drain while they’re at it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being blamed for blindly following a radical “Big Government, Big Brother” socialist agenda despite the expressed wishes of the American people. Nancy is running a Congress that has allowed warrantless wiretapping, torture, assorted military tribunals, the Patriot Act, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cancellation, and the open-ended war in the Middle East, to go on unabated, despite a history of objection from the American people. Ahh… Nancy does represent those people does she not?
Along with Harry’s God Complex, we have the mind-set of the far left, which, as one commentator said, "Liberals don't think they have any politics. They think they are in a state of nature. Only those who disagree with them are unnatural." That comment tells you just about all you need to know of the cultural and political war in America today. Progressives are supposed to be the “best educated” and most thoughtful among us, but I often wonder… Along with a good many on-line news articles we will find numerous sections devoted to reader comments. Often those comments are well thought out, by readers from both sides of the political spectrum. But by far the majority of the witticisms from the left are more comparable to the tantrums we might expect from angry children who don’t get their way, and have no real reason to object other than they’re not getting their way. They regularly prove the comment that all arguments with liberals take the same course, in that first a liberal will make a ridiculous statement. Then, after proving the liberal statement is stupid, the liberal will try to change the subject. And finally, when all else fails, the liberal will resort to name calling or outright lies. It generally seems to work that way in my view.
Another left wing “statement” that pretty well had this old soldier going ballistic was the comment by Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran. According to Mr. Moran, his opponent in the current election is totally unqualified for the job. Mr. Moran was heard telling a Democratic gathering that his opponent, Republican Patrick Murray, is just another unqualified GOP candidate, and that "What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven't been in office, haven't served or performed in any kind of public service." Moran said that "My opponent is typical, frankly." Well, Okay, that sounds like little more than typical election time posturing and rhetoric. BUT, Mr. Moran’s opponent is a retired Army colonel with 24 years of service that includes combat in Iraq. The idea that such a military record doesn't qualify as "public service" has left a sour taste in Murray's mouth, to say nothing of mine! Col. Murray wrote in reply that "It is unconscionable to me how a member of Congress from a District with so many Veterans, who also sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, could make such shameful and offensive comments about the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform." He added that “This kind of disrespect to our service members not only offends me, but is insensitive to the sacrifices made by our dedicated military families as well." In a typical Dumbocrat response, Mr. Moran told a local news outlet that he simply misspoke, and his constituents know that isn’t what he meant. Huh, more “misunderstanding” of leftist rhetoric I guess, although there seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
We’ve seen how the left operates, and we’ve seen examples of what they plan for our country. Despite the promising numbers of the polls, and the claims that the left is “falling off the cliff”, we haven’t stopped Barrack Obama, and we have not made this country safe. We have not stopped the advance of socialism, and we have not stopped the Democrats from destroying our country. And we, with all our efforts to date, have won nothing, unless we get out and vote on Nov. 2ed, by proving our determination, and putting an end to the left’s goal of totally dominating our country.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Support Obama?
Should Christians respect Obama? That’s the question asked by Evangelist Dr. David Barton on a radio talk show. Dr. Barton stated that; “Respect the Office? Yes. Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say. I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!” I can readily understand Dr. Barton’s sentiment, and I certainly agree with him. Along with the good doctor, I’ll see what I can do to make sure that Mr. O is a one-termer!
Why? Because along with Dr, Barton I do not share Obama's vision for America. I certainly do not share his radical Marxist concept of re-distributing wealth, his views on raising taxes, nor his beliefs on how to reinvent healthcare. I don’t share his view that America is arrogant and not a Christian Nation. I fail to see how reducing our military forces by 25% will solve any of our overseas problems. I do not share his idea that Radical Islam is our friend, and I certainly do not agree with his plan to negotiate with terrorist regimes. And I object to his view of amnesty for illegals. No, my vision of America was learned by living and working in this country for well over sixty years, and seems to be quite different from Mr. Obama's concept, one learned in Kenya, Indonesia, Chicago, and Lord only knows where else.
I didn’t learn about economics from studying the failed theories of Karl Marx, I learned from sitting down each month with a paycheck and a seemingly endless stack of bills. I learned about a Christian America from occasionally attending church, and from my studies of history. I learned about the “glories of Islam” and their “religion of peace” from visiting several Islamic countries while in the Service (I wasn’t impressed). I learned about our health care system from spending years as a fireman-paramedic, and from spending the last few years as a cardiac patient. I learned about our need for a strong military from spending a number of years (regular and reserve) in military service. I learned about the “arrogance of America” from spending a few years overseas, helping defend other countries, and from watching Americans bend over backwards trying to assist the victims of wars, natural disasters, tyranny, and often just plain bad luck. Strangely enough, I learned about American “intolerance” only from reading about it in assorted leftist books and newspapers, certainly not from observation or personal experience.
My background is somewhat different from Mr. Obama’s as well. My folks were married, they stayed that way, and they raised a crop of kids while doing so. Mom, and a few Pastors, took care of my religious education, while a lot of public school teachers made sure I learned the three R’s. Dad, and his belt, taught me to respect the law, and that certain childish activities are not considered socially acceptable. He also taught me to keep my nose out of other peoples business, and that I was the only responsible party when I did something really stupid. Living on a farm for a few years taught me the meaning of hard work. I learned to save money, because no matter how much I whimper and wail, the world does not owe me a free ride. I learned to set realistic goals for myself, and not to expect the impossible of others. At some point after my teenage years I also learned that I don’t have all the answers, and I’ve been learning something new every day since.
Mr. O and I differ on a few other points as well, for one thing I can prove where I was born. My religious education taught me Christian values, not “God D- - - America”, or that the “Islamic call to prayer was the sweetest sound I ever heard”. I had a career as a working firefighter, not as a “Community Organizer”. Well, I didn’t get to attend an Ivy League College either… but does a lot of night school… and an advanced degree from the School of Hard Knocks, count?
For years the liberals in our society have attacked our country, our morals, and our spiritual beliefs. They have portrayed us as a land where everything is tolerated… except being intolerant or using politically incorrect words. They have mocked and attacked the values of our Country, teaching our children that immorality is proper behavior and that crime does pay. They have made every effort to remove the name of God from our Society. They have challenged the right to bear arms, and the most basic principles of our criminal codes. They have attacked the most fundamental of all our Freedoms, the right of free speech, unless of course it’s in the name of flag burning or pornography. Mr. O travels overseas, on my dime of course, and promptly bows to foreign leaders who are our sworn enemies! Adding to the insult he apologizes for America being American, then tells the world that we’re arrogant and that all the problems in the entire world are our fault! He, and his left wing cheering section, want us to drop the tried and true policies that have made us the most successful nation in history and the leader of the free world, instead we're to follow in the footsteps of assorted petty tyrants whose regimes have utterly failed! Majority rules in America, and I can fully agree with the concept. However, the left has been an extremely vocal and totally irrevelent minority for years, a rabid mob that demands we follow their rules, and has the avowed goal of totally destroying my country! I will be a voice in opposition to Obama, his leftist minions, and their "Goals for America”. I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who would allow that Socialist – Marxist crowd to change everything that is good about America. Unite behind Obama? Never!
We’re in the home stretch of the election campaign. In less than two weeks we will head to the polls to vote for the future of our families, our communities, our state, and our country. We’re seeing the closing arguments now, which are what the politicians want voters to have in mind when they head to the voting booths. Those arguments should be very simple and to the point. In 1984, Reagan’s closing argument was “Morning in America” versus returning to the malaise of Jimmy Carter. In 1994, the Republican closing argument was the “Contract with America” versus decades of broken promises from the Democrats. This year, the “Pledge to America” is a closing argument for unseating left-wing, big-spending Democrats. It’s a fact that in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6% and food stamp usage was around 26.5 million people. Today, the unemployment rate is 9.6% and rising, with over 40 million Americans on food stamps. The choice in this election appears to have evolved into paychecks versus food stamps.
Trust Obama and the gang? Well, which future do you want? More food stamps? Or more paychecks? Now, go Ye forth and voice your opinion, by voting your convictions.
Why? Because along with Dr, Barton I do not share Obama's vision for America. I certainly do not share his radical Marxist concept of re-distributing wealth, his views on raising taxes, nor his beliefs on how to reinvent healthcare. I don’t share his view that America is arrogant and not a Christian Nation. I fail to see how reducing our military forces by 25% will solve any of our overseas problems. I do not share his idea that Radical Islam is our friend, and I certainly do not agree with his plan to negotiate with terrorist regimes. And I object to his view of amnesty for illegals. No, my vision of America was learned by living and working in this country for well over sixty years, and seems to be quite different from Mr. Obama's concept, one learned in Kenya, Indonesia, Chicago, and Lord only knows where else.
I didn’t learn about economics from studying the failed theories of Karl Marx, I learned from sitting down each month with a paycheck and a seemingly endless stack of bills. I learned about a Christian America from occasionally attending church, and from my studies of history. I learned about the “glories of Islam” and their “religion of peace” from visiting several Islamic countries while in the Service (I wasn’t impressed). I learned about our health care system from spending years as a fireman-paramedic, and from spending the last few years as a cardiac patient. I learned about our need for a strong military from spending a number of years (regular and reserve) in military service. I learned about the “arrogance of America” from spending a few years overseas, helping defend other countries, and from watching Americans bend over backwards trying to assist the victims of wars, natural disasters, tyranny, and often just plain bad luck. Strangely enough, I learned about American “intolerance” only from reading about it in assorted leftist books and newspapers, certainly not from observation or personal experience.
My background is somewhat different from Mr. Obama’s as well. My folks were married, they stayed that way, and they raised a crop of kids while doing so. Mom, and a few Pastors, took care of my religious education, while a lot of public school teachers made sure I learned the three R’s. Dad, and his belt, taught me to respect the law, and that certain childish activities are not considered socially acceptable. He also taught me to keep my nose out of other peoples business, and that I was the only responsible party when I did something really stupid. Living on a farm for a few years taught me the meaning of hard work. I learned to save money, because no matter how much I whimper and wail, the world does not owe me a free ride. I learned to set realistic goals for myself, and not to expect the impossible of others. At some point after my teenage years I also learned that I don’t have all the answers, and I’ve been learning something new every day since.
Mr. O and I differ on a few other points as well, for one thing I can prove where I was born. My religious education taught me Christian values, not “God D- - - America”, or that the “Islamic call to prayer was the sweetest sound I ever heard”. I had a career as a working firefighter, not as a “Community Organizer”. Well, I didn’t get to attend an Ivy League College either… but does a lot of night school… and an advanced degree from the School of Hard Knocks, count?
For years the liberals in our society have attacked our country, our morals, and our spiritual beliefs. They have portrayed us as a land where everything is tolerated… except being intolerant or using politically incorrect words. They have mocked and attacked the values of our Country, teaching our children that immorality is proper behavior and that crime does pay. They have made every effort to remove the name of God from our Society. They have challenged the right to bear arms, and the most basic principles of our criminal codes. They have attacked the most fundamental of all our Freedoms, the right of free speech, unless of course it’s in the name of flag burning or pornography. Mr. O travels overseas, on my dime of course, and promptly bows to foreign leaders who are our sworn enemies! Adding to the insult he apologizes for America being American, then tells the world that we’re arrogant and that all the problems in the entire world are our fault! He, and his left wing cheering section, want us to drop the tried and true policies that have made us the most successful nation in history and the leader of the free world, instead we're to follow in the footsteps of assorted petty tyrants whose regimes have utterly failed! Majority rules in America, and I can fully agree with the concept. However, the left has been an extremely vocal and totally irrevelent minority for years, a rabid mob that demands we follow their rules, and has the avowed goal of totally destroying my country! I will be a voice in opposition to Obama, his leftist minions, and their "Goals for America”. I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who would allow that Socialist – Marxist crowd to change everything that is good about America. Unite behind Obama? Never!
We’re in the home stretch of the election campaign. In less than two weeks we will head to the polls to vote for the future of our families, our communities, our state, and our country. We’re seeing the closing arguments now, which are what the politicians want voters to have in mind when they head to the voting booths. Those arguments should be very simple and to the point. In 1984, Reagan’s closing argument was “Morning in America” versus returning to the malaise of Jimmy Carter. In 1994, the Republican closing argument was the “Contract with America” versus decades of broken promises from the Democrats. This year, the “Pledge to America” is a closing argument for unseating left-wing, big-spending Democrats. It’s a fact that in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6% and food stamp usage was around 26.5 million people. Today, the unemployment rate is 9.6% and rising, with over 40 million Americans on food stamps. The choice in this election appears to have evolved into paychecks versus food stamps.
Trust Obama and the gang? Well, which future do you want? More food stamps? Or more paychecks? Now, go Ye forth and voice your opinion, by voting your convictions.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Less Government?
"POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN,
AND FOR THE SAME REASON"
AND FOR THE SAME REASON"
The Tea Party is often described as a self-generated grass-roots protest against the growth of government and the resulting deficit. One commentator calls it the “Tea Kettle movement” — because “all it’s doing is letting off steam”. Well… Okay… I can agree with that to a point. The Tea partiers are letting off steam which, I suspect, is a good thing. We can all envision what happens when a boiler gets overheated and the safety valve is stuck. The results aren’t pretty. When that happens in a socio-political situation, the damage is widespread, long lasting, and really hard on society. A prime example would be the French revolution. The somewhat volatile French proletariat was bedeviled by a tax and spend government, the economy was a shambles, and the gentry ignored the anger building up. When the explosion came, French society crumbled, the gentry really did loose their heads, anarchy ruled the streets, and dictator’s filled the power vacuum. Eventually France got Napoleon and what was at the time “the Mother of all Wars”. With all that, the French political scene has yet to recover, having been in somewhat of a turmoil for the last two-hundred years! I’ll grant that we haven’t reached quite that extreme… yet, but there’s a lot of anger is building up. And that anger exists for many of the same reasons that happened in France. It’s building, and our leaders are blissfully ignoring the warning signs.
The issues that upsets the Tea Kettle, our debt and bloated government, are symptoms of the problem, not the cause. They’re signs of a country that’s in decline and losing its competitive edge. The first question that should be asked is; how does the leader of the free world, the richest and most successful country in history, come to this? And all that’s needed is to look at history. Rome was the military and economic power of the world a couple of thousand years ago, yet they deteriorated and fell to a few rag-tag bands of barbarians. The Chinese empire was a cultural and scientific power second to none, yet they simply disintegrated, and were soon swallowed piecemeal by a greedy world. The sun never set on the British Empire, yet in a few short years following WW I England went from being the worlds’ superpower to just another country. The Soviet Union was a super power, abit a somewhat shaky one, but they totally collapsed seemingly overnight. And now it appears to be our turn. How… Why…
The short answer is of course, debt, in every example government simply overspent their available resources. But that is not the root cause. The cause is, and has always been, a failure of leadership. In our case, politics has become just another form of entertainment, Congress a forum for legalized bribery, and our lawmaking institutions are divided by partisanship to the point of paralysis. The Tea Party folks, who run the full scale from Republicans through Independents to Democrats, understand this at a gut level wither they know it or not, and are fumbling around in the dark looking for a leader who can turn this sorry state of affairs around. Nor are they alone, as neither of the established mainstream parties have a leader worthy of the name.
First and foremost a political leader must have three characteristics. He must be a person who is more interested in fighting for his country than any particular political ideology. Second, he must be able to persuade Americans that he actually has a workable plan, not just some vague idea to cut taxes or hand everybody free medical care, but rather a plan to make America successful, thriving, and respected again. Thirdly, he must have the ability to lead in a rapidly changing world, an individual who believes his job is not to complain about the polls, but to change the polls by his actions. So what do we have today? The Republicans are effectively leaderless; there is no Teddy Roosevelt on their horizon. On the other hand, the Democrats have Mr. Obama, and about all I see him do is to whine about how tough things are and blame everything on somebody else. There’s no Truman or Kennedy of that front either. As for the TEA party, in its present state it doesn’t have a leader unless you count Sarah Palin. A more or less staunch conservative “party”, I have yet to see a Ronnie Reagan show up in their ranks.
So… all you wannabe political leaders, pay attention. It’s remarkable how the federal government imposes its will on a resistant public. True, it takes a lot to stir the American people to civil disobedience, but still, I’d think there aren’t enough bureaucrats and federal agents in all the land to impose the ridiculous and detailed rules the fed’s have forced on us, which should reminded us of just how destructive people can be when they grab political power, or when their “wisdom” is used by bureaucrats in some new scheme to “reinvent” government. More of anything when government is concerned only means more government, and more government is the problem, not the solution. The very fact that the best and the brightest among us feel the need to reinvent government every few years proves that such government doesn’t work. Government is not supposed to “provide” for us, it’s not supposed to control our lives, and nothing in the Constitution calls for “entitlements” either. “Government” is merely intended to be the lubricant that makes our society run a little smother. Despite the wistful thinking and fuzzy theories of the progressive left, the solution to our current crop of problems is a whole lot less government. How difficult can that be to understand?
A recent article in Fortune Magazine discusses the idea of reinventing our government into what they call “Government 2.0”, which is envisioned to be “a citizen-centric philosophy and strategy that believes the best results are usually driven by partnerships between citizens and government, at all levels”. I read this to mean yet more government, with the feds being the “senior partner”. Let me offer this: A little more of this and a little more of that in governing adds up to nothing but more government, not necessarily better government. So, how about giving less government a chance? “Give us a chance” is the whole idea around which grass-roots political action is rising. That rumble we hear in the background is building to a crescendo, and politicians are ignoring it at their peril.
Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, progressives have been searching for ways to change our government, which they believe will bring us to some utopian level of greater good and promote the general welfare. The truth is, we don’t need to change our current “Government 1.5” to a “2.0” version, we need a return to “Government 1.0”, the Constitution we started with. And that is my hope for the Tea Party, that somehow they will find a way to “reset” of our federal government to the Constitutional Republic it was meant to be!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Wolf Wars II
Idaho County is certainly on the map now! It seems that the County’s Wolf Disaster Declaration has ignited a medium sized firestorm across the entire country, with several other Idaho and Montana counties following our lead and considering similar action. A quick search of the internet brings up thousands of commentaries, news articles, and other stories on the subject, along with objections from environmental terrorists and the raging of pro-wolf activists. If all of this isn’t bad enough, the political administration is following Mr. Obama’s ideas, and it’s the most “left-wing, anti-hunting, anti-gun, pro-environmentalist, in love with global warming, animal loving mob the world has ever seen.” Surely we can’t expect the Obama administration to allow the states to manage the wolves, as that would be allowing state sovereignty. After all, the federal government must control everything, as per the left, and this will be a great tool to reign in those unruly, conservative westerners. We’ve pretty well had it with the Department of Interior and the USFWS, many are disgusted with our own fish and game departments, and mostly we’re tired of the unending lawsuits from outsiders who demand their own way, have the money to force the issues, and have activist judges in their hip pockets. In short, we’re being put into a position where either government accedes to our wishes, or we’ll be forced to take extreme measures. We could just give up I suppose, but surrender has never been a real popular option in these parts. Hello Washington? The natives are getting restless out here.
Adding insult to injury, Gov. Otter’s long awaited decision on our disaster declaration has finally arrived, via turtle express. In his letter to Idaho County, Butch “shares our frustrations”, and “no one was more disappointed that I” with Judge Molloy’s re-listing decision. While that’s the “to be expected” platitudes, they aren’t very reassuring. He goes on to inform us once again that “we are in the process of attaining the authority” to address wolves and the unacceptable impact they are having across the state. All well and fine, but just how long are we expected to wait for the gears of federal government to grind? Two or three years perhaps? How about five or ten years? For the most part this decision from Boise does little more than tell the citizens of Idaho County to “shut-up and feed the wolves”.
In some of the western states, groups and individuals are ready with legislation that would force the hand of the Federal government. A few of these proposals are to the point of telling the Feds to get the hell out of their state and take their wolves with them, or the state will take care of the problem. That isn’t a real good idea either, but the states certainly can’t be blamed for that attitude. We’ve been promised all sorts of things from even before wolves were dumped on us, and none of those promises have been lived up to. We’ve had it with false promises as we watch years of work to restore game herds trampled into the dust by the wolf restoration program. We can only wonder how much longer the western states are going to allow themselves be used and abused. It’s been argued that the so-called animal rights groups’ goal isn’t in saving wildlife, and if these groups really had the idea of saving animals, they’ve now reached the counter-productive stage of forcing people to kill wolves, both out of anger, and to protect their property. And that still doesn’t consider the damage an excessive wolf population is doing to other wildlife. Not one of these organizations has ever offered a compromise. The people have been lied to and the federal government still hasn’t the courage to stand up for effective wildlife management. As a side note, I noticed the pro-life folks lining Main Street the other day, protesting instant abortion I think, and for the record I fully agree with them. However, in the case of wolf hugging environfreaks I’m willing to make an exception…
People will only allow themselves to be pushed so far. As I said, once they reach a certain point they will either stand up and fight or give up. The question remains, will Sec. Salazar pursue wolf delisting or will he and the administration continue pandering to the environmentalists? Will the animal rights groups continue their agenda and mount even bigger lawsuits? Will the states draft legislation in hopes of regaining the sovereignty once guaranteed us by the Constitution? Will we fight back, defending our freedoms, property rights, and “home rule”? As far as I’m concerned, the environmentalists can have all the wolves they want, in their back yard, and I’m sure that many of the folks in Idaho and Montana would be happy to send them a few.
With all the environut objections to wolf control, they have managed to leave out one “minor” problem, disease. In mid 2005, Idaho wildlife officials began conducting post mortem examinations of many wildlife species. The study cites 62% of Idaho wolves and 63% of Montana wolves contained E. granulosis tapeworms, and 71% of all the wolves tested contained Taenia sp tapeworms, both of which are known to be parasites that humans generally catch from assorted canine species. The study reports that “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding,” and also: “Based on our results, the parasite is now well established in wolves in these states and is documented in elk, mule deer, and a mountain goat as intermediate hosts.” That continues on to any animal that graze in areas where wolves are found, and anyone who works with those animals. The manner of spread of these worms is quite interesting from a biological viewpoint, but for now, all you have to do to become infected is live or work in a contaminated area! Plus you expose the kids when you get home and those minute egg sacs brush off your clothing (or the dog’s fur) and land on the carpet where the young’uns are playing. (Those egg sacs are viable for a couple of years as well.) These species of worm were completely unknown this far south… until Canadian wolves were introduced to our area. The worms can be fatal to humans, and naturally Boise forgot to warn us about this little detail!
The pretense for re-listing was that Wyoming refused to adopt limits on killing wolves. Actually Wyoming had a management plan that was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and did require Wyoming to maintain a specified number of breeding pairs of wolves. The real issue seems to be that in most of that state the wolf was classified as a predator, and could be shot on sight. Humm… Perhaps Gov. Otter should declare a similar program for the state of Idaho?
In my wildest dreams I never considered that Idaho County might be the place that triggered a rebellion, which is what appears to have happened. With that, I’ll say to our Commissioners, “Good on ‘ye lads”. We’ve started something that may well leave the “Wolf War” as perhaps our last legal hope to salvage a freedom loving country. And if the County Commissioners determine that we must “call out the militia” to protect our small part of this nation… Well… arthritis may not allow me to walk very far anymore, but I can still see well enough to shoot a wolf!
Adding insult to injury, Gov. Otter’s long awaited decision on our disaster declaration has finally arrived, via turtle express. In his letter to Idaho County, Butch “shares our frustrations”, and “no one was more disappointed that I” with Judge Molloy’s re-listing decision. While that’s the “to be expected” platitudes, they aren’t very reassuring. He goes on to inform us once again that “we are in the process of attaining the authority” to address wolves and the unacceptable impact they are having across the state. All well and fine, but just how long are we expected to wait for the gears of federal government to grind? Two or three years perhaps? How about five or ten years? For the most part this decision from Boise does little more than tell the citizens of Idaho County to “shut-up and feed the wolves”.
In some of the western states, groups and individuals are ready with legislation that would force the hand of the Federal government. A few of these proposals are to the point of telling the Feds to get the hell out of their state and take their wolves with them, or the state will take care of the problem. That isn’t a real good idea either, but the states certainly can’t be blamed for that attitude. We’ve been promised all sorts of things from even before wolves were dumped on us, and none of those promises have been lived up to. We’ve had it with false promises as we watch years of work to restore game herds trampled into the dust by the wolf restoration program. We can only wonder how much longer the western states are going to allow themselves be used and abused. It’s been argued that the so-called animal rights groups’ goal isn’t in saving wildlife, and if these groups really had the idea of saving animals, they’ve now reached the counter-productive stage of forcing people to kill wolves, both out of anger, and to protect their property. And that still doesn’t consider the damage an excessive wolf population is doing to other wildlife. Not one of these organizations has ever offered a compromise. The people have been lied to and the federal government still hasn’t the courage to stand up for effective wildlife management. As a side note, I noticed the pro-life folks lining Main Street the other day, protesting instant abortion I think, and for the record I fully agree with them. However, in the case of wolf hugging environfreaks I’m willing to make an exception…
People will only allow themselves to be pushed so far. As I said, once they reach a certain point they will either stand up and fight or give up. The question remains, will Sec. Salazar pursue wolf delisting or will he and the administration continue pandering to the environmentalists? Will the animal rights groups continue their agenda and mount even bigger lawsuits? Will the states draft legislation in hopes of regaining the sovereignty once guaranteed us by the Constitution? Will we fight back, defending our freedoms, property rights, and “home rule”? As far as I’m concerned, the environmentalists can have all the wolves they want, in their back yard, and I’m sure that many of the folks in Idaho and Montana would be happy to send them a few.
With all the environut objections to wolf control, they have managed to leave out one “minor” problem, disease. In mid 2005, Idaho wildlife officials began conducting post mortem examinations of many wildlife species. The study cites 62% of Idaho wolves and 63% of Montana wolves contained E. granulosis tapeworms, and 71% of all the wolves tested contained Taenia sp tapeworms, both of which are known to be parasites that humans generally catch from assorted canine species. The study reports that “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding,” and also: “Based on our results, the parasite is now well established in wolves in these states and is documented in elk, mule deer, and a mountain goat as intermediate hosts.” That continues on to any animal that graze in areas where wolves are found, and anyone who works with those animals. The manner of spread of these worms is quite interesting from a biological viewpoint, but for now, all you have to do to become infected is live or work in a contaminated area! Plus you expose the kids when you get home and those minute egg sacs brush off your clothing (or the dog’s fur) and land on the carpet where the young’uns are playing. (Those egg sacs are viable for a couple of years as well.) These species of worm were completely unknown this far south… until Canadian wolves were introduced to our area. The worms can be fatal to humans, and naturally Boise forgot to warn us about this little detail!
The pretense for re-listing was that Wyoming refused to adopt limits on killing wolves. Actually Wyoming had a management plan that was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and did require Wyoming to maintain a specified number of breeding pairs of wolves. The real issue seems to be that in most of that state the wolf was classified as a predator, and could be shot on sight. Humm… Perhaps Gov. Otter should declare a similar program for the state of Idaho?
In my wildest dreams I never considered that Idaho County might be the place that triggered a rebellion, which is what appears to have happened. With that, I’ll say to our Commissioners, “Good on ‘ye lads”. We’ve started something that may well leave the “Wolf War” as perhaps our last legal hope to salvage a freedom loving country. And if the County Commissioners determine that we must “call out the militia” to protect our small part of this nation… Well… arthritis may not allow me to walk very far anymore, but I can still see well enough to shoot a wolf!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
What's up GOP
I’m not a Republican in a strict sense of the word, nor am I a Tea Party member, and I’m most certainly not a Democrat. What I am is a proud Independent voter with moderate/conservative leanings, which means that I generally (but not always) vote Republican. I also tend to smile benignly upon Independent candidates for office. In my self appointed role as a political commentator, I try to keep abreast of what the politicians are up to as best I can, which probably makes me only slightly better informed than most folks.
In case you’ve been totally isolated for the last few months, we have a “mid-term” election coming up November 2ed, and it’s been described as one of the most crucial mid-terms in our nations’ history. At stake is nothing less that control of Congress, with all 435 House seats and 33 Senatorial seats up for grabs, along with a number of state governorships and innumerable local positions. Mr. Obama’s plans for change are up for grabs as well, and a whole lot of political careers are on the line. Vying for these elected positions is an entire herd of people representing just about every political philosophy ever devised by the human race. Of these political parties, the Democrats are presently ahead, having control of the White House and Congress, the later by 57 House and 18 Senate seats. With that control, the Democrats are happily forcing a virtual tsunami of far left social programs on the American people, and merrily spending what’s left of our national wealth. Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy weeping and wailing over Democratic policies, fuming at the current majority leadership, and of course plotting revenge. Caught in the middle is the “electorate”, the great unwashed mob of American citizens who are expected follow along blindly, and pay the bills without complaint. Filling the role of “advisors” to the electorate is the mainstream media… a mess of political pundits… and a midsized flock of Hollywierd “celebrities” who can’t keep their own lives straightened out, but claim to be eminently qualified to tell the rest of us how to live. This political Three Ring Circus is known to Americans as “Democracy”. To me it’s the biggest mess I’ve seen in the proverbial ‘coons age. The Democrats are for the moment trying their best to survive the upcoming election despite the imminent demise being predicted for them by the Republicans, while the Republicans are riding high on a wave of public distrust of the current regime.
According to most reports, the American people are quite upset with the massive spending programs espoused by the Democrats, and Republican hopefuls are doing their best to denounce it, while distancing themselves from the congressional shenanigans of the last few years. Conveniently they forget to mention that for years before the Democrats seized power, the Republicans themselves were spending our money as fast as the IRS could steal it from us. That in turn spawned the TEA Party movement, which has both mainstream parties upset, and most of the media totally hysterical. The TEA party is not a political party as such, but is a rather loose knit bunch of conservatives from most lines of political thinking, that are quite upset with our continually expanding government, our steady loss of freedom, and the monstrous national debt. For the most part they want government downsized, political power returned to the states, and an end to our huge “entitlement” spending programs. All of this is in direct opposition to Mr. Obama’s program for “changing” us, which, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the mainstream Republicans have been happily agreeing with for years! In their day, that would have had Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan manning the barricades!
It seems that nearly all the incumbent Republican’s and Blue Dog Democrats are telling us that they’re solidly against one government program or another, when in fact they’ve happily compromised on almost everything! They get an earmark or two and a few pork barrel projects, while Mr. Obama spends another few hundred billion dollars on assorted entitlements and social engineering theories. Tomorrow they go out and do it all over again! Now we have the TEA Party supported candidates entering the arena. For the most part these guys are hard core conservatives in outlook, which means they are (or at least were) Republicans or Moderates at one time or another. However, they oppose the Republican establishment’s “sellout” of our rights, our freedoms, our economy, and our distinctly American culture. In the recent primary elections they have done surprisingly well, which should tell the Republican leadership that something’s wrong, or at least that the rank and file membership strongly objects to the sellout! Get this quote from Ed Rogers, former aide to George H.W. Bush: “Experience has taught me that, in the end, politicians tend to make the best politicians.” In translation, that means the job can only be handled by the professional politicos who have done so well for us over the last 20 years… The establishment should be thankful that the Tea Party people have been as civil as they are… if they were liberals they’d already be rioting in the streets! When patient, law-abiding citizens who have never been involved in politics decide they have had enough of the status quo, when they watch their money and liberty disappear, they will not go quietly into the night!
Playing to the dissent within Republican ranks, the DNC leadership is now using the old “we know we're bad, but we are the lesser of two evils" argument... with the theme being “You may hate us, but GOP is worse”. (You just know your country is going down the tubes when politicians start admitting how pathetic they are, and then say "at least we aren't THAT bad".) Democratic strategist David DiMartino claims that "In every state and every district, it has to be a choice between them and us. Our policies are more popular than theirs." Humm… Dunno where he got that idea from! Strangely enough, any time the GOP has control of the house, we seem to have more jobs, but when the Democrats have control of the house, they cut jobs and increase social services. And look at the fiasco with heath care and financial reform. Who are the Congressmen that favor vastly expanded social benefits? Who is it that wants to emasculate our armed forces? Who favors illegal immigration… who favors instant abortion? We know what the Democrats plan, and by press time we’ll have the mainstream Republican “New Contract with America” announcement. What I’d hope to see next is a conservative plan of what they hope to accomplish once they’re in office. Then, we’d all be much better informed, and able to make an intelligent selection when we vote.
My fear is that the far left Democrats will score a big time win in the upcoming election, as the mainstream republicans are so busy fighting their conservative base that they’re driving people away, directly into the welcoming arms of really radical splinter groups. Essentially they’re splitting the vote as we’ve seen happen several times in recent years. If that happens, and the Democrats retain control of the US Congress for yet another two years, I shudder to think what will happen to this once proud and prosperous nation.
In case you’ve been totally isolated for the last few months, we have a “mid-term” election coming up November 2ed, and it’s been described as one of the most crucial mid-terms in our nations’ history. At stake is nothing less that control of Congress, with all 435 House seats and 33 Senatorial seats up for grabs, along with a number of state governorships and innumerable local positions. Mr. Obama’s plans for change are up for grabs as well, and a whole lot of political careers are on the line. Vying for these elected positions is an entire herd of people representing just about every political philosophy ever devised by the human race. Of these political parties, the Democrats are presently ahead, having control of the White House and Congress, the later by 57 House and 18 Senate seats. With that control, the Democrats are happily forcing a virtual tsunami of far left social programs on the American people, and merrily spending what’s left of our national wealth. Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy weeping and wailing over Democratic policies, fuming at the current majority leadership, and of course plotting revenge. Caught in the middle is the “electorate”, the great unwashed mob of American citizens who are expected follow along blindly, and pay the bills without complaint. Filling the role of “advisors” to the electorate is the mainstream media… a mess of political pundits… and a midsized flock of Hollywierd “celebrities” who can’t keep their own lives straightened out, but claim to be eminently qualified to tell the rest of us how to live. This political Three Ring Circus is known to Americans as “Democracy”. To me it’s the biggest mess I’ve seen in the proverbial ‘coons age. The Democrats are for the moment trying their best to survive the upcoming election despite the imminent demise being predicted for them by the Republicans, while the Republicans are riding high on a wave of public distrust of the current regime.
According to most reports, the American people are quite upset with the massive spending programs espoused by the Democrats, and Republican hopefuls are doing their best to denounce it, while distancing themselves from the congressional shenanigans of the last few years. Conveniently they forget to mention that for years before the Democrats seized power, the Republicans themselves were spending our money as fast as the IRS could steal it from us. That in turn spawned the TEA Party movement, which has both mainstream parties upset, and most of the media totally hysterical. The TEA party is not a political party as such, but is a rather loose knit bunch of conservatives from most lines of political thinking, that are quite upset with our continually expanding government, our steady loss of freedom, and the monstrous national debt. For the most part they want government downsized, political power returned to the states, and an end to our huge “entitlement” spending programs. All of this is in direct opposition to Mr. Obama’s program for “changing” us, which, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the mainstream Republicans have been happily agreeing with for years! In their day, that would have had Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan manning the barricades!
It seems that nearly all the incumbent Republican’s and Blue Dog Democrats are telling us that they’re solidly against one government program or another, when in fact they’ve happily compromised on almost everything! They get an earmark or two and a few pork barrel projects, while Mr. Obama spends another few hundred billion dollars on assorted entitlements and social engineering theories. Tomorrow they go out and do it all over again! Now we have the TEA Party supported candidates entering the arena. For the most part these guys are hard core conservatives in outlook, which means they are (or at least were) Republicans or Moderates at one time or another. However, they oppose the Republican establishment’s “sellout” of our rights, our freedoms, our economy, and our distinctly American culture. In the recent primary elections they have done surprisingly well, which should tell the Republican leadership that something’s wrong, or at least that the rank and file membership strongly objects to the sellout! Get this quote from Ed Rogers, former aide to George H.W. Bush: “Experience has taught me that, in the end, politicians tend to make the best politicians.” In translation, that means the job can only be handled by the professional politicos who have done so well for us over the last 20 years… The establishment should be thankful that the Tea Party people have been as civil as they are… if they were liberals they’d already be rioting in the streets! When patient, law-abiding citizens who have never been involved in politics decide they have had enough of the status quo, when they watch their money and liberty disappear, they will not go quietly into the night!
Playing to the dissent within Republican ranks, the DNC leadership is now using the old “we know we're bad, but we are the lesser of two evils" argument... with the theme being “You may hate us, but GOP is worse”. (You just know your country is going down the tubes when politicians start admitting how pathetic they are, and then say "at least we aren't THAT bad".) Democratic strategist David DiMartino claims that "In every state and every district, it has to be a choice between them and us. Our policies are more popular than theirs." Humm… Dunno where he got that idea from! Strangely enough, any time the GOP has control of the house, we seem to have more jobs, but when the Democrats have control of the house, they cut jobs and increase social services. And look at the fiasco with heath care and financial reform. Who are the Congressmen that favor vastly expanded social benefits? Who is it that wants to emasculate our armed forces? Who favors illegal immigration… who favors instant abortion? We know what the Democrats plan, and by press time we’ll have the mainstream Republican “New Contract with America” announcement. What I’d hope to see next is a conservative plan of what they hope to accomplish once they’re in office. Then, we’d all be much better informed, and able to make an intelligent selection when we vote.
My fear is that the far left Democrats will score a big time win in the upcoming election, as the mainstream republicans are so busy fighting their conservative base that they’re driving people away, directly into the welcoming arms of really radical splinter groups. Essentially they’re splitting the vote as we’ve seen happen several times in recent years. If that happens, and the Democrats retain control of the US Congress for yet another two years, I shudder to think what will happen to this once proud and prosperous nation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Wolf Wars
Idaho’s “Wolf War” continues, as does the Idaho County investigation into a Wolf Management Plan. At the August 31st meeting of the county commissioners, Dustin Miller and Tom Perry of the State Office of Species Conservation addressed the commissioners, explaining just what the state hopes to accomplish at present. In a nutshell, what they told us is that nothing solid has been done yet, as the various political sub-divisions are weighing their options, with the idea being to get the wolves under control without running afoul of assorted endangered species laws. That’s understandable I guess, as nobody really wants to get stuck with some horrendous fines, or go to jail, over a bunch of murderous canine predators!
In the course of researching our wolf problems, I’ve read quite a few articles written by environmentalists and pro-wolf activists. For the most part I’m amazed by the fallacies, half-truths, and in some cases outright lies promoted by these people. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that wolves never attack humans, never kill domestic animals, kill wildlife only to survive, and in general are big loving puppies that make wonderful pets. One pundit went so far as to claim that a massacred flock of sheep had all died overnight from some sort of respiratory disease! I get the impression that these folks have never seen a wolf in the wild, and have never seen the aftermath of a wolf attack. I also suspect that these same people have never seen a wolf outside a zoo, and they’ve probably never left their comfortable city environs either...
Yielding to considerable political pressure, as of August 30th Governor Otter sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, requesting the Interior Dept. cooperate with the State of Idaho in providing an immediate solution to our wolf problem. By press time we should have some word if this is happening, but given the track record of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and that of the federal courts, I really don’t have a lot of hope for anything constructive… but Butch does have to jump through all the legal hoops anyway.
Quoting from the August 16, 2010 Resolution of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission regarding wolf management, Paragraph 1 states that “It is the law and policy of the State of Idaho that all wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the State of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the State of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed.” Considering that this policy was quite acceptable to the feds for nearly a hundred years, I see no reason that we couldn’t enforce it today. After all, Idaho does have a quite respectable track record when it comes to wildlife management! The stumbling block is the federal courts, and their openly siding with the wolf huggers.
The original goal of the wolf reintroduction plan was to have a population of ten breeding pairs and one hundred wolves for three consecutive years. Part of Northwest Montana, central Idaho, and Yellowstone National Park were designated “nonessential experimental wolf population areas” for the gray wolf, and 66 wolves were released in the Central Idaho and Yellowstone areas during 1995 and 1996. By 2000 the population had increased to more than 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, and by 2005 we had more than 500 wolves, five times the “sustainable” target level. Now it appears that the “experiment” has gone somewhat awry, with the Northern Rockies wolf population presently estimated by wildlife experts at somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500 animals on the loose. Understand that the population numbers are argued by environmentalists, as they only count the very few animals that have been trapped and tagged with radio collars. Utilizing the irrefutable logic of environmentalism, any untagged wolves “don’t exist” apparently. Once nearly exterminated, wolves have made quite a comeback, and as they continue to multiply the destruction of deer, elk, and moose (and with their taste for livestock), their return is bringing about a severe backlash.
In years past, the ideals of conservation was supported and understood by most people. We understood that man had the power and even the right to improve, change, and utilize the environment for his own betterment, which improved things for most wildlife as well. As we
progressed, we learned new ways to conserve and use nature. Land in many eastern states was often left in a useless state after coal mining, but learning from those mistakes, we now can, and generally do, reclaim the land to as good or better condition than it was in its natural state. Logging was found to be the best thing for nature's forests, where instead of dying from disease, insect infestation, fire and such, timber could be harvested and utilized, thus making forests healthier. Eradication of wolves and controlled hunting improved the situation for wildlife as well, by maintaining the population at sustainable levels over a long period of time.
One federal judge stated (in a different case), "In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted...Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.” Such a wide range of “understanding” the intent of Congress leaves federal judges a lot of leeway! In an example of that view, in August of 2010, US District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the relisting of wolves in Idaho and Montana, based purely upon a legal technicality handily pointed out to him by lawyers for the environuts. Today, local government agencies are seeking authority to control gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite the court action restoring the animal's endangered status across most of the country, and leaving in federal hands the fate of our ranchers, outfitters, sportsmen and others who suffer harm by severe wolf predation.
Perhaps if we put a bit of political pressure on our congressmen they’ll quit kowtowing to the environmentalist special interests for a change, and correct this intolerable legal situation? Or are we supposed to merely continue feeding our domestic livestock to thousands of ravenous wolves?
In the course of researching our wolf problems, I’ve read quite a few articles written by environmentalists and pro-wolf activists. For the most part I’m amazed by the fallacies, half-truths, and in some cases outright lies promoted by these people. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that wolves never attack humans, never kill domestic animals, kill wildlife only to survive, and in general are big loving puppies that make wonderful pets. One pundit went so far as to claim that a massacred flock of sheep had all died overnight from some sort of respiratory disease! I get the impression that these folks have never seen a wolf in the wild, and have never seen the aftermath of a wolf attack. I also suspect that these same people have never seen a wolf outside a zoo, and they’ve probably never left their comfortable city environs either...
Yielding to considerable political pressure, as of August 30th Governor Otter sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, requesting the Interior Dept. cooperate with the State of Idaho in providing an immediate solution to our wolf problem. By press time we should have some word if this is happening, but given the track record of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and that of the federal courts, I really don’t have a lot of hope for anything constructive… but Butch does have to jump through all the legal hoops anyway.
Quoting from the August 16, 2010 Resolution of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission regarding wolf management, Paragraph 1 states that “It is the law and policy of the State of Idaho that all wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the State of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the State of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed.” Considering that this policy was quite acceptable to the feds for nearly a hundred years, I see no reason that we couldn’t enforce it today. After all, Idaho does have a quite respectable track record when it comes to wildlife management! The stumbling block is the federal courts, and their openly siding with the wolf huggers.
The original goal of the wolf reintroduction plan was to have a population of ten breeding pairs and one hundred wolves for three consecutive years. Part of Northwest Montana, central Idaho, and Yellowstone National Park were designated “nonessential experimental wolf population areas” for the gray wolf, and 66 wolves were released in the Central Idaho and Yellowstone areas during 1995 and 1996. By 2000 the population had increased to more than 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, and by 2005 we had more than 500 wolves, five times the “sustainable” target level. Now it appears that the “experiment” has gone somewhat awry, with the Northern Rockies wolf population presently estimated by wildlife experts at somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500 animals on the loose. Understand that the population numbers are argued by environmentalists, as they only count the very few animals that have been trapped and tagged with radio collars. Utilizing the irrefutable logic of environmentalism, any untagged wolves “don’t exist” apparently. Once nearly exterminated, wolves have made quite a comeback, and as they continue to multiply the destruction of deer, elk, and moose (and with their taste for livestock), their return is bringing about a severe backlash.
In years past, the ideals of conservation was supported and understood by most people. We understood that man had the power and even the right to improve, change, and utilize the environment for his own betterment, which improved things for most wildlife as well. As we
progressed, we learned new ways to conserve and use nature. Land in many eastern states was often left in a useless state after coal mining, but learning from those mistakes, we now can, and generally do, reclaim the land to as good or better condition than it was in its natural state. Logging was found to be the best thing for nature's forests, where instead of dying from disease, insect infestation, fire and such, timber could be harvested and utilized, thus making forests healthier. Eradication of wolves and controlled hunting improved the situation for wildlife as well, by maintaining the population at sustainable levels over a long period of time.
One federal judge stated (in a different case), "In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted...Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.” Such a wide range of “understanding” the intent of Congress leaves federal judges a lot of leeway! In an example of that view, in August of 2010, US District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the relisting of wolves in Idaho and Montana, based purely upon a legal technicality handily pointed out to him by lawyers for the environuts. Today, local government agencies are seeking authority to control gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, despite the court action restoring the animal's endangered status across most of the country, and leaving in federal hands the fate of our ranchers, outfitters, sportsmen and others who suffer harm by severe wolf predation.
Perhaps if we put a bit of political pressure on our congressmen they’ll quit kowtowing to the environmentalist special interests for a change, and correct this intolerable legal situation? Or are we supposed to merely continue feeding our domestic livestock to thousands of ravenous wolves?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque?
The question of a mosque being built within the shadow of New York’s “Ground Zero” seems to have stirred up a real hornets nest around the country, and I ‘spect I might as well weigh-in on the subject as well. First off, our war on terrorism is not a war against Islam, or at least it’s not supposed to be. If we tried to make it so, all we would accomplish would be to make just about every Muslim in the world a potential terrorist, quickly presenting us with a couple of billion vengeful enemies! Besides, the “War on Islam” has been going on for the last fifteen hundred years, with Islam pitting itself against just about everybody else in the world. Still, New York’s Muslims, as do all Americans, enjoy freedom of religion in this country, and have the right to build a mosque just about anyplace they desire. That is a right guaranteed to us all by our Constitution, and is not something we can make conditional. Having said that, I also think the folks wishing to put another mosque in lower Manhattan, along with the authorities trying to allow it, are out of their ever lovin’ minds! Plain and simple, this new Mosque does not belong anywhere near Ground Zero. We can’t deny American Muslims their right to build a house of worship, but we do have the right to ask that it be moved to another area.
For decades the term “Ground Zero” has been used to conjure up images of the atomic bomb devastation in Japan following WW II. After Sept. 11 it became synonymous with the World Trade Center site left by the attacks, with body parts and airplane debris scattered on area rooftops, or the office papers that flew to Brooklyn and New Jersey. You don't have to be prejudiced against Islam to believe, as do many Americans, that the area around Ground Zero is a sacred place, or, as the Mother of a firefighter killed in the collapse called it, “a cemetery”. The 16-acre site is part of a neighborhood filled with restaurants, hotels, and apartment buildings. The World Financial Center, a Burger King, discount clothing outlet, a firehouse, two Mosques, and a Catholic church are all located in the immediate area. It once housed the two towers hit by hijacked jetliners, as well as four other buildings in the complex, including a Marriott hotel. 7 World Trade Center, a part of the complex that collapsed on Sept. 11, was rebuilt four years ago. It’s across the street from the building where the Islamic community center is planned. The Mosque itself is two blocks north of the fence. Today, construction cranes rise over the entire site, along with an office tower over 30 stories high, a Sept. 11 memorial, and a NY transit hub currently under construction. And yet nobody seems to have noticed that there are already two mosques in the neighborhood… one is only four blocks away.
New Jersey Governor Christie said that while he understood the pain and sorrow of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, “we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush.” Then he charged Mr. Obama with trying to turn the issue into a political football. But it was already a political football when Mr. Obama made his speech, and Mr. Obama did was fumbled it with his flip-flopping when the following day he retracted parts of his statement? One leftist commentator claims that “we should not miss this golden opportunity to reach the hearts and minds of the Islamic world by wholeheartedly endorsing the mosque. This is no time for equivocation. We need to show our moral strength as a nation and not be deterred by opinion polls and hypocritical Christians". He then goes on with “Jesus would surely have endorsed the building of this house of worship meant to honor the God of the Book common to Christian, Jew, and Muslim.” Somehow I just can’t see our “moral strength as a nation” being endangered by Christians any more that I can see Jesus endorsing a Mosque. Our national moral strength came from our Christian forefathers after all, and as for Jesus’ part in this play on words, he was Jewish, and because of that little fact had the Moslems been around two thousand years ago they’d have happily killed him (and everybody else in town) when he was an infant!
Now we get into the “fishy part” of the whole proposal. Sharif El-Gamal, 37, the owner of the building at the center of the storm, recently told one interviewer about “all the money” he expected to make out of the deal, which totaled nearly twenty million dollars. It’s also come to light that El-Gamal has a long history of legal and tax problems in both New York and Florida. The controversial imam at the center of the debate, Fiesal Abdul Rauf, has his own problems, one of which was getting caught trying to circumvent New York’s tax laws. The Imam is currently on a taxpayer-funded State Department trip to the Mideast, serving as a representative of the United States government! Adding to the brouhaha, Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks were recently shocked to learn that government officials had killed a deal to relocate and rebuild St. Nicholas Church, which was destroyed by one of the falling WTC towers. Nobody from the church was hurt, but for the past eight years the congregation has been trying to rebuild its house of worship at a location about 100 yards from the original site. Now, amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of rebuilding. “The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said. Yet those same officials are offering the Mosque developers $70 million in tax free city development bonds!
This is not simply a black and white issue. Certainly Muslims have the right to practice their religion. The issue is where they're doing it. I for one think it's insensitive to put the mosque so close to Ground Zero, being somewhat akin to putting a Nazi memorial next to Auschwitz! They’re within their legal rights to do so, but it’s still pretty insensitive. The stated purpose of the mosque was to help heal the wounds of 9/11. Obviously it’s not having that effect. Along with most Americans, a large majority of New Yorkers oppose it, and that is the community it is meant to serve. The developers should recognize that they are causing considerable pain to the people they insist they're trying to help - and reconsider the location of their mosque.
Whatever the outcome, New York’s Muslims might consider dedicating their new Mosque, wherever it’s built, to the memory of the 9 health care workers in Afghanistan, murdered by Taliban Muslims.
For decades the term “Ground Zero” has been used to conjure up images of the atomic bomb devastation in Japan following WW II. After Sept. 11 it became synonymous with the World Trade Center site left by the attacks, with body parts and airplane debris scattered on area rooftops, or the office papers that flew to Brooklyn and New Jersey. You don't have to be prejudiced against Islam to believe, as do many Americans, that the area around Ground Zero is a sacred place, or, as the Mother of a firefighter killed in the collapse called it, “a cemetery”. The 16-acre site is part of a neighborhood filled with restaurants, hotels, and apartment buildings. The World Financial Center, a Burger King, discount clothing outlet, a firehouse, two Mosques, and a Catholic church are all located in the immediate area. It once housed the two towers hit by hijacked jetliners, as well as four other buildings in the complex, including a Marriott hotel. 7 World Trade Center, a part of the complex that collapsed on Sept. 11, was rebuilt four years ago. It’s across the street from the building where the Islamic community center is planned. The Mosque itself is two blocks north of the fence. Today, construction cranes rise over the entire site, along with an office tower over 30 stories high, a Sept. 11 memorial, and a NY transit hub currently under construction. And yet nobody seems to have noticed that there are already two mosques in the neighborhood… one is only four blocks away.
New Jersey Governor Christie said that while he understood the pain and sorrow of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, “we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush.” Then he charged Mr. Obama with trying to turn the issue into a political football. But it was already a political football when Mr. Obama made his speech, and Mr. Obama did was fumbled it with his flip-flopping when the following day he retracted parts of his statement? One leftist commentator claims that “we should not miss this golden opportunity to reach the hearts and minds of the Islamic world by wholeheartedly endorsing the mosque. This is no time for equivocation. We need to show our moral strength as a nation and not be deterred by opinion polls and hypocritical Christians". He then goes on with “Jesus would surely have endorsed the building of this house of worship meant to honor the God of the Book common to Christian, Jew, and Muslim.” Somehow I just can’t see our “moral strength as a nation” being endangered by Christians any more that I can see Jesus endorsing a Mosque. Our national moral strength came from our Christian forefathers after all, and as for Jesus’ part in this play on words, he was Jewish, and because of that little fact had the Moslems been around two thousand years ago they’d have happily killed him (and everybody else in town) when he was an infant!
Now we get into the “fishy part” of the whole proposal. Sharif El-Gamal, 37, the owner of the building at the center of the storm, recently told one interviewer about “all the money” he expected to make out of the deal, which totaled nearly twenty million dollars. It’s also come to light that El-Gamal has a long history of legal and tax problems in both New York and Florida. The controversial imam at the center of the debate, Fiesal Abdul Rauf, has his own problems, one of which was getting caught trying to circumvent New York’s tax laws. The Imam is currently on a taxpayer-funded State Department trip to the Mideast, serving as a representative of the United States government! Adding to the brouhaha, Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks were recently shocked to learn that government officials had killed a deal to relocate and rebuild St. Nicholas Church, which was destroyed by one of the falling WTC towers. Nobody from the church was hurt, but for the past eight years the congregation has been trying to rebuild its house of worship at a location about 100 yards from the original site. Now, amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of rebuilding. “The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said. Yet those same officials are offering the Mosque developers $70 million in tax free city development bonds!
This is not simply a black and white issue. Certainly Muslims have the right to practice their religion. The issue is where they're doing it. I for one think it's insensitive to put the mosque so close to Ground Zero, being somewhat akin to putting a Nazi memorial next to Auschwitz! They’re within their legal rights to do so, but it’s still pretty insensitive. The stated purpose of the mosque was to help heal the wounds of 9/11. Obviously it’s not having that effect. Along with most Americans, a large majority of New Yorkers oppose it, and that is the community it is meant to serve. The developers should recognize that they are causing considerable pain to the people they insist they're trying to help - and reconsider the location of their mosque.
Whatever the outcome, New York’s Muslims might consider dedicating their new Mosque, wherever it’s built, to the memory of the 9 health care workers in Afghanistan, murdered by Taliban Muslims.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Tenthers?
"… the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government" -- Thomas Jefferson:
If you spend a few days listening to left wing commentators on the news you’ll soon come to the conclusion that they hate all conservatives with a passion. We’re usually described as “red necked, mouth breathing, racist, retarded, teabaggers”… and that’s just for starters! I do object to their use of the word “hypocrites” though, as I think that’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Come on guys, you keep preaching that we need a “meaningful dialog”, but rabid name calling isn’t helping that situation very much! Quoting one of the more polite left wing commentators speaking about right wing conservative constitutionalists; “It’s enough to make you think they’re just making it up as they go along. It clearly can’t be the case that every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional. Yet the reality is even worse. When the right’s view of the Constitution was ascendant 75 years ago, basic protections such as a restriction on child labor were declared unconstitutional; laws banning discrimination were unthinkable; and Social Security was widely viewed as next in line for the Supreme Court’s chopping block.”
“… every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional”… Hmm… He’s got a point there, although I would argue that not all of the laws favored by the left are unconstitutional, it’s just that I have a hard time thinking of even one that is legal, or at least that was passed in accordance with the guidelines of our Constitution. Personally I favor a good many of those laws, but the US Congress does not have the authority to pass, or enforce, any kind of nationwide law that might strike their fancy. The several sovereign states do have that right, but congress does not. My much maligned pundit continues with; “These conservatives are over-reading the Tenth Amendment, a provision of the Constitution that provides Congress’s power is not unlimited.” Whoa up there a minute boyo, are you perhaps trying to tell me that the power of Congress should be unlimited!? Certainly I’m no legal eagle, but even a cursory reading if the Constitution most definitely states that federal power is limited to only a very few duties, and nothing more! Jefferson's words are about the simplest explanation available of that. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it by the constitution, and in no way does it allow the assumption of any other powers or authority. Historically, many people argued against forming a national union, fearing that a federal government would gain too much power over the states, which is exactly the situation that we’re faced with today. Jefferson reassured the states, saying that they, being sovereign and independent, have the “unquestionable right to judge of the infraction.” The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised to protect the citizen’s freedom from encroachment by both state and federal authority, specifically dividing governing power between federal and state authority, and reserving the ultimate governmental authority to the people themselves. The entire idea of “sovereign states” and a limited federal authority was to give us “home rule” in nearly all cases, and I surely don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand that!
We’d have to look long and hard to find anyone who isn’t aware of the “birthers”, who, according to the mainstream media, are a weird fringe group that thinks Obama is a foreign born “Manchurian candidate” of some sort. (A “fringe” consisting of nearly 29% of the American public.) Well, the left likes to call anyone that disagrees with ‘em a fringe group, inferring that all “fringers” (?) are obviously far right wing mental cases of one sort or another. But another quite large “fringe” group that’s been in the news lately are the “tenthers”, that apparently are a very dangerous bunch of people who have the gall to believe that the US Constitution means what it says!
One political writer claims that; “So-called “tenther” conservatives are determined to use their twisted reinterpretation to shrink national leaders’ power to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. They must not be allowed to succeed for three reasons: Tentherism is dangerous, Tentherism has no basis in constitutional text or history, Tentherism is authoritarian.” Well, yeah, I can agree with part of that… but not in a way that would make the author very happy! Certainly we should hope to “shrink national leader’s power”, as semi-powerless “leaders” are quite preferential to a flock of petty tyrants sitting in Washington DC, incessantly handing down arbitrary “laws” to control every waking moment of our lives! And yes, “tentherism” is dangerous… in fact it could be downright fatal… to both big government and rampant socialism. Now the part I disagree with, that “tentherism” has no basis in constitutional text or history… Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Madison argued that “the powers of the general government” result “from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,” (our Constitution), and are “no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact….” As such, the States have the authority to “interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” Jefferson was somewhat more direct in the Kentucky Resolves. He said that the States “delegated to [the federal] government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force….” So where did he get that from? Well, it was expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment! Finally, we see the “tentherism is authoritarian” claim. Well, yes it is… it certainly does limit federal powers, and in no uncertain terms either, which is what infuriates progressives. Just think, if our elected officials respected and supported the 10th amendment and state sovereignty, all of these overreaching federal social mandates would be null and void… everything that D.C. has done, under “authority” that they are not specifically allowed, by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And that means just about everything congress has done over the last hundred or so years!
At least one good idea (that should be completely unnecessary) came from Congress recently. Rep. John Shadegg of Ariz. introduced H.R. 450, called the “Enumerated Powers Act”, a more or less procedural act that would require all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to include a statement that specifies the Constitutional authority under which it’s proposed. "The founders intended and wrote in the Constitution that the federal government could do certain things but it can't do just anything it feels like," Shadegg said, "And yet, it is doing whatever it feels like." Sen. Tom Coburn of Okla. introduced the companion bill in the Senate (S. 1319), with 24 co-sponsors signing on. But I doubt either bill will be passed by Mr. Obama’s tame Congress.
If you spend a few days listening to left wing commentators on the news you’ll soon come to the conclusion that they hate all conservatives with a passion. We’re usually described as “red necked, mouth breathing, racist, retarded, teabaggers”… and that’s just for starters! I do object to their use of the word “hypocrites” though, as I think that’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Come on guys, you keep preaching that we need a “meaningful dialog”, but rabid name calling isn’t helping that situation very much! Quoting one of the more polite left wing commentators speaking about right wing conservative constitutionalists; “It’s enough to make you think they’re just making it up as they go along. It clearly can’t be the case that every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional. Yet the reality is even worse. When the right’s view of the Constitution was ascendant 75 years ago, basic protections such as a restriction on child labor were declared unconstitutional; laws banning discrimination were unthinkable; and Social Security was widely viewed as next in line for the Supreme Court’s chopping block.”
“… every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional”… Hmm… He’s got a point there, although I would argue that not all of the laws favored by the left are unconstitutional, it’s just that I have a hard time thinking of even one that is legal, or at least that was passed in accordance with the guidelines of our Constitution. Personally I favor a good many of those laws, but the US Congress does not have the authority to pass, or enforce, any kind of nationwide law that might strike their fancy. The several sovereign states do have that right, but congress does not. My much maligned pundit continues with; “These conservatives are over-reading the Tenth Amendment, a provision of the Constitution that provides Congress’s power is not unlimited.” Whoa up there a minute boyo, are you perhaps trying to tell me that the power of Congress should be unlimited!? Certainly I’m no legal eagle, but even a cursory reading if the Constitution most definitely states that federal power is limited to only a very few duties, and nothing more! Jefferson's words are about the simplest explanation available of that. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it by the constitution, and in no way does it allow the assumption of any other powers or authority. Historically, many people argued against forming a national union, fearing that a federal government would gain too much power over the states, which is exactly the situation that we’re faced with today. Jefferson reassured the states, saying that they, being sovereign and independent, have the “unquestionable right to judge of the infraction.” The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised to protect the citizen’s freedom from encroachment by both state and federal authority, specifically dividing governing power between federal and state authority, and reserving the ultimate governmental authority to the people themselves. The entire idea of “sovereign states” and a limited federal authority was to give us “home rule” in nearly all cases, and I surely don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand that!
We’d have to look long and hard to find anyone who isn’t aware of the “birthers”, who, according to the mainstream media, are a weird fringe group that thinks Obama is a foreign born “Manchurian candidate” of some sort. (A “fringe” consisting of nearly 29% of the American public.) Well, the left likes to call anyone that disagrees with ‘em a fringe group, inferring that all “fringers” (?) are obviously far right wing mental cases of one sort or another. But another quite large “fringe” group that’s been in the news lately are the “tenthers”, that apparently are a very dangerous bunch of people who have the gall to believe that the US Constitution means what it says!
One political writer claims that; “So-called “tenther” conservatives are determined to use their twisted reinterpretation to shrink national leaders’ power to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. They must not be allowed to succeed for three reasons: Tentherism is dangerous, Tentherism has no basis in constitutional text or history, Tentherism is authoritarian.” Well, yeah, I can agree with part of that… but not in a way that would make the author very happy! Certainly we should hope to “shrink national leader’s power”, as semi-powerless “leaders” are quite preferential to a flock of petty tyrants sitting in Washington DC, incessantly handing down arbitrary “laws” to control every waking moment of our lives! And yes, “tentherism” is dangerous… in fact it could be downright fatal… to both big government and rampant socialism. Now the part I disagree with, that “tentherism” has no basis in constitutional text or history… Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Madison argued that “the powers of the general government” result “from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,” (our Constitution), and are “no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact….” As such, the States have the authority to “interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” Jefferson was somewhat more direct in the Kentucky Resolves. He said that the States “delegated to [the federal] government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force….” So where did he get that from? Well, it was expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment! Finally, we see the “tentherism is authoritarian” claim. Well, yes it is… it certainly does limit federal powers, and in no uncertain terms either, which is what infuriates progressives. Just think, if our elected officials respected and supported the 10th amendment and state sovereignty, all of these overreaching federal social mandates would be null and void… everything that D.C. has done, under “authority” that they are not specifically allowed, by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And that means just about everything congress has done over the last hundred or so years!
At least one good idea (that should be completely unnecessary) came from Congress recently. Rep. John Shadegg of Ariz. introduced H.R. 450, called the “Enumerated Powers Act”, a more or less procedural act that would require all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to include a statement that specifies the Constitutional authority under which it’s proposed. "The founders intended and wrote in the Constitution that the federal government could do certain things but it can't do just anything it feels like," Shadegg said, "And yet, it is doing whatever it feels like." Sen. Tom Coburn of Okla. introduced the companion bill in the Senate (S. 1319), with 24 co-sponsors signing on. But I doubt either bill will be passed by Mr. Obama’s tame Congress.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Wolf Plan
At a recent meeting of the Idaho County Commissioners, the subject of an Idaho County Wolf Management Policy came up. This is something guaranteed to raise the hackles of nearly everyone in the county, about as surely as hearing a wolf howling at night near your hunting camp will. The first question that came to my mind was; why do we need a county plan, when we’ve already got all sorts of State and Federal plans on the books? A second thought came immediately after; yeah, all sorts of contradictory plans… emanating from the Federal Wildlife people, the EPA, State Fish and Game authorities, about a scadzillion rabid environmentalist’s, PETA, bleeding hearts, and the “experts” in the Federal Court System, but I haven’t noticed any community organizers or Je$$e Jackson being involved… yet. Unfortunately Canadian Grey Wolves have been introduced into our local ecosystem, and apparently we’re going to have to learn to live with ‘em, like it or not. Personally I really don’t see why we need more wolves anywhere in the country, after all don’t we already have more than enough politicians, bankers, lawyers, tax assessors, and bill collectors trying to eat us out of house and home?
None-the-less, I discussed the subject with Commission Chairman Skip Brandt, who said; “Back in 2003, I danced the dance with the Federal Government, in helping draft the ‘Idaho Wolf Management Plan’. A Plan they said they would accept, so to get the wolves delisted. Now they, via a Federal Judge, have gone back on the deal. This is just like Arizona and their immigration issue, a different issue but still a situation where a Federal Judge acting as a little god, steps in to override our legislative process. It is obvious that the Federal Government is not going to protect us, and the State is not going to step out and take on the Federal Judges, so it is time we (Idaho County) need to step up to the plate and put those on notice that we are going to prepare to protect our County.”
Wolves are the “apex predator” in nature, surpassed only by man. Found in all parts of the world, canis lupus irremotus consists of about 32 sub-species, 24 of which are found in North America, with the Canadian Grey Wolf being the largest and most aggressive. The wolf native to Idaho is described as the “Idaho Gray Wolf”, a smaller and somewhat less aggressive version of the Canadian wolf. These predators were purposely eliminated in Idaho decades ago due to severe depredations and a continuing threat to the safety of the early residents of this state. That elimination created an environment of security for humans, wildlife, and livestock that became a cornerstone of our local heritage, custom, and culture. Today, those threats are reappearing with the migration of wolves into our area.
It’s been widely claimed by activists that a healthy wild wolf has never attacked a human on this continent, although history states otherwise. Attacks on humans are uncommon, probably because with all the additives in our diet we taste bad to ‘em, but attacks have occurred, both in the early years of settlement and much more recently. (After a cursory search of the internet, I had gathered a list of eighteen such attacks before I quit bothering to collect them. Those stories are quite sickening.) One of the more heart rending newspaper reports from 1888 reads; “NEW ROCKFORD, DAK, March 7 - The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe) More recently, in March of this year, 32 year old Candice Berner, a special education teacher, was attacked and killed by wolves (confirmed), while jogging near the Alaskan village of Chignik Lake. Her body, partially eaten, was surrounded by wolf prints. Canada’s Algonquin Provincial Park was the scene of another attack. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. That night 11 year old Zach Delventhal decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zach suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face, where a wolf had bit him and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and his Mother, racing to his side, picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from his wounds. The wolf stood less than a yard away, so she yelled for her husband Thom, who charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged repeatedly, until finally leaving. "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach received more than 80 stitches to repair his face. There are many more similar reports.
We also hear that wolves only prey on old, sick, or injured animals, but wolves are opportunists that prey on anything they can catch, both killing to survive, and purely for the sake of killing. In Yellowstone National Park the elk population was considered overly high, and it was argued that wolves should be introduced to naturally cut back the overpopulation of elk. So, the Canadian Grey Wolf (an invasive species), was forcibly introduced into Yellowstone by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in order to curry favor with the tree hugging environuts. Well, more wolves do mean less elk as they depredate the herd, and this continues until the elk, and all other wildlife are eradicated, then the wolf population either dies off due to disease and starvation… or moves out of the area in search of more prey. Then the elk can increase in numbers due to fewer wolves. This is usually referred to as the “Teeter-Totter of Nature”, but where in this cycle do wolves become a problem to man and livestock, due to limited prey? According to an Idaho Fish and Game officer I spoke with recently, wolf packs have already decimated the Lolo deer and elk herds, and are now eating their way in our direction. What happens when those packs reach the Camas Prairie (as they already have in small numbers), with our numerous farms, livestock, and people? It is a documented fact that wolves often kill more than they require for food, somewhat similar to a blood thirsty weasel in the hen coop. Historically, many wolves were well-known for their extensive killing. The "Custer Wolf" was estimated to have killed $25,000 worth of livestock (figuring inflation from 1920 to today, that’s about $550,000 worth). The "Aquila Wolf" in Arizona was known to have killed 65 sheep in one night and 40 at another time. "Three Toes of Harding County" in South Dakota killed 66 sheep in two nights shortly before its capture. And these were not diseased or rabid animals as the treehuggers would have you believe.
The real question, and hazard, is the killing of people by wolves, and it’s bound to happen again. Humans continue to expand their range, and wildlife habitat continues to shrink, whether we like it or not. We can add in those people who believe wolves will sense their love and reciprocate, so they head off into the woods to lure their “majestic” spirit animal closer with a sandwich. Milton P. Skinner, in his book “The Yellowstone Nature Book” (published in 1924) wrote, "Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..." Skinner was right, the areas of Asia where wolf attacks on humans commonly occur today are the same areas in which people have no effective means of predator control. India alone suffers about a hundred people killed by grey wolves, every year, and now the 9th Circuit Court wishes the same on American citizens! So now, we’ve got wolves in our area, where they, as a federally protected species, have absolutely no reason to fear us, as the courts won’t allow us to do anything in our own defense. Best keep the kids (and your pets) in the house nowdays, and teach them not to run out and pet the big doggie that’s suddenly wandering around the yard! You might also want to carry a gun when you go out hunting for firewood.
It appears that environmentalists rule in Washington DC, and our state legislature can’t or won’t stand up to them. It also seems that Federal Circuit Court Judges know more about wildlife management in here Idaho than do the trained and qualified wildlife biologists we employ. So… I guess we’re on our own to defend ourselves, our children, and our property. I don’t know what form a county wolf management policy will take, but it certainly looks like we need to do something before we’re up to our ears in these voracious killers!
Who knows, I just might ask the commissioners if we perhaps could send a few bus loads of environmentalists (and the black-robed deities that sit on the federal bench) out into the woods, where they too can enjoy the experience of dancing with wolves.
None-the-less, I discussed the subject with Commission Chairman Skip Brandt, who said; “Back in 2003, I danced the dance with the Federal Government, in helping draft the ‘Idaho Wolf Management Plan’. A Plan they said they would accept, so to get the wolves delisted. Now they, via a Federal Judge, have gone back on the deal. This is just like Arizona and their immigration issue, a different issue but still a situation where a Federal Judge acting as a little god, steps in to override our legislative process. It is obvious that the Federal Government is not going to protect us, and the State is not going to step out and take on the Federal Judges, so it is time we (Idaho County) need to step up to the plate and put those on notice that we are going to prepare to protect our County.”
Wolves are the “apex predator” in nature, surpassed only by man. Found in all parts of the world, canis lupus irremotus consists of about 32 sub-species, 24 of which are found in North America, with the Canadian Grey Wolf being the largest and most aggressive. The wolf native to Idaho is described as the “Idaho Gray Wolf”, a smaller and somewhat less aggressive version of the Canadian wolf. These predators were purposely eliminated in Idaho decades ago due to severe depredations and a continuing threat to the safety of the early residents of this state. That elimination created an environment of security for humans, wildlife, and livestock that became a cornerstone of our local heritage, custom, and culture. Today, those threats are reappearing with the migration of wolves into our area.
It’s been widely claimed by activists that a healthy wild wolf has never attacked a human on this continent, although history states otherwise. Attacks on humans are uncommon, probably because with all the additives in our diet we taste bad to ‘em, but attacks have occurred, both in the early years of settlement and much more recently. (After a cursory search of the internet, I had gathered a list of eighteen such attacks before I quit bothering to collect them. Those stories are quite sickening.) One of the more heart rending newspaper reports from 1888 reads; “NEW ROCKFORD, DAK, March 7 - The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe) More recently, in March of this year, 32 year old Candice Berner, a special education teacher, was attacked and killed by wolves (confirmed), while jogging near the Alaskan village of Chignik Lake. Her body, partially eaten, was surrounded by wolf prints. Canada’s Algonquin Provincial Park was the scene of another attack. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. That night 11 year old Zach Delventhal decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zach suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face, where a wolf had bit him and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and his Mother, racing to his side, picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from his wounds. The wolf stood less than a yard away, so she yelled for her husband Thom, who charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged repeatedly, until finally leaving. "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach received more than 80 stitches to repair his face. There are many more similar reports.
We also hear that wolves only prey on old, sick, or injured animals, but wolves are opportunists that prey on anything they can catch, both killing to survive, and purely for the sake of killing. In Yellowstone National Park the elk population was considered overly high, and it was argued that wolves should be introduced to naturally cut back the overpopulation of elk. So, the Canadian Grey Wolf (an invasive species), was forcibly introduced into Yellowstone by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in order to curry favor with the tree hugging environuts. Well, more wolves do mean less elk as they depredate the herd, and this continues until the elk, and all other wildlife are eradicated, then the wolf population either dies off due to disease and starvation… or moves out of the area in search of more prey. Then the elk can increase in numbers due to fewer wolves. This is usually referred to as the “Teeter-Totter of Nature”, but where in this cycle do wolves become a problem to man and livestock, due to limited prey? According to an Idaho Fish and Game officer I spoke with recently, wolf packs have already decimated the Lolo deer and elk herds, and are now eating their way in our direction. What happens when those packs reach the Camas Prairie (as they already have in small numbers), with our numerous farms, livestock, and people? It is a documented fact that wolves often kill more than they require for food, somewhat similar to a blood thirsty weasel in the hen coop. Historically, many wolves were well-known for their extensive killing. The "Custer Wolf" was estimated to have killed $25,000 worth of livestock (figuring inflation from 1920 to today, that’s about $550,000 worth). The "Aquila Wolf" in Arizona was known to have killed 65 sheep in one night and 40 at another time. "Three Toes of Harding County" in South Dakota killed 66 sheep in two nights shortly before its capture. And these were not diseased or rabid animals as the treehuggers would have you believe.
The real question, and hazard, is the killing of people by wolves, and it’s bound to happen again. Humans continue to expand their range, and wildlife habitat continues to shrink, whether we like it or not. We can add in those people who believe wolves will sense their love and reciprocate, so they head off into the woods to lure their “majestic” spirit animal closer with a sandwich. Milton P. Skinner, in his book “The Yellowstone Nature Book” (published in 1924) wrote, "Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..." Skinner was right, the areas of Asia where wolf attacks on humans commonly occur today are the same areas in which people have no effective means of predator control. India alone suffers about a hundred people killed by grey wolves, every year, and now the 9th Circuit Court wishes the same on American citizens! So now, we’ve got wolves in our area, where they, as a federally protected species, have absolutely no reason to fear us, as the courts won’t allow us to do anything in our own defense. Best keep the kids (and your pets) in the house nowdays, and teach them not to run out and pet the big doggie that’s suddenly wandering around the yard! You might also want to carry a gun when you go out hunting for firewood.
It appears that environmentalists rule in Washington DC, and our state legislature can’t or won’t stand up to them. It also seems that Federal Circuit Court Judges know more about wildlife management in here Idaho than do the trained and qualified wildlife biologists we employ. So… I guess we’re on our own to defend ourselves, our children, and our property. I don’t know what form a county wolf management policy will take, but it certainly looks like we need to do something before we’re up to our ears in these voracious killers!
Who knows, I just might ask the commissioners if we perhaps could send a few bus loads of environmentalists (and the black-robed deities that sit on the federal bench) out into the woods, where they too can enjoy the experience of dancing with wolves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)