July 23, 2019

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part IV

What transpired recently in Idaho is a prime example of the product of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” Idaho, like many other states, cannot find funding enough to carry out their non fish and game, environmentalist-dictated programs. In a ruse to find “alternative” means of funding, the Department of Fish and Game cobbled together a symposium, of sorts, structured entirely from the knowledge gained from outcome based education. In other words, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) knew what they wanted to achieve from such a gathering and thus designed the meetings to achieve the desired outcome.

The brainwashed leaders believed and/or convinced themselves, while at the same time mounting a propaganda campaign to additionally alter public opinion, that filling the room with operatives trained in new-science science and new-education education, was a fair representation of stakeholders and the only thing they had been taught to do. (Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.)

A small group of not so easily influenced holdouts, who have enough of an understanding to see that this sort of thing is not right, did their best to stop the symposium or change it to something resembling sanity. The result was that the majority, which is a reflection of American Society, are victims of the sinister brainwashing that exists in our schools and throughout every aspect of our society. I believe those putting on the meetings, and the majority of those in attendance, actually believe they are doing the right thing.

The key here is to gain an understanding that this “changing” or mindset alterations is not some natural phenomenon. It is not merely explained away as a “progressive” lifestyle. It may appear that way but is this progression a voluntary one? It’s an orchestrated effort as we shall learn. Readers must open their eyes to this fact.

Who is responsible for the brainwashing? I choose to call it brainwashing because that’s really what it is. When anyone or any organization sets out to change the rational way of thinking in a mass of people, that’s brainwashing. When I write that those responsible for this action believe that, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America”, the only way this can be done is through mind manipulation; to devise a way in which to completely alter the way that people think; to convince those masses that what was white is now black, that what was right is now wrong. This is brainwashing.

As I said, this program did not start yesterday. It has been implemented to varying degrees for a very long time and what some of us are seeing in our society is a product of that work.

In Part III, I shared a tiny bit of how the United Nations has implemented programs in education that have an influence on our everyday lives. What I didn’t write much about is who is responsible for the programs and what’s behind those plans to brainwash our people.

This conversion of thought, or the destruction of all thought, comes from seemingly countless entities but all with a common factor. To grow such a large sphere of influence is a monumental task that must begin with finding the right leaders of nations around the world and “training” them to take their new-found knowledge back to their homes and businesses with them to share with others and to train new “change agents”. In time, there becomes hundreds, then thousands and tens of thousands of change agents all freshly brainwashed carrying out the mission of the “enlightened” elites of the world “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

One of those training facilitators is known as the National Training Laboratories (NTL). I have personal knowledge and experience with this organization because NTL was founded in my hometown of Bethel, Maine. As a high school student I worked for this company and later as an adult actually attended some of their seminars and “T-Groups” (training groups), as well as visited the homes of some of the founders.

Bethel, Maine is a micro New England village where the population in the village proper is approximately 1,100 people. In a town that tiny, it’s difficult to not know what is going on; the same could be said for the activities of NTL.

Founded in Bethel, Maine in 1947 by Dr. Kurt Lewin, main offices were eventually set up in Washington, D.C. and during the summers, “training” took place at the NTL Center, as well as the facilities of Gould Academy and the Bethel Inn; all located in Bethel, Maine. In addition to Lewin, Ron Lippett, Lee Bradford and others helped found NTL and after Lewin’s early death, it was mostly Lippett and Bradford that continued on with NTL.

Lewin was a freak show really; a German native trained in psychology and kicked out of his native country because of the controversial work he did. In short, he discovered that through his work he believed he could make mentally ill people well. While that is a readily acceptable practice all across America, Lewin carried it to an antithetical extreme. He believed he could make mentally well people ill. His findings became the basis for sinister plans to extract information from people and brainwash masses to achieve desired public opinion. This was used initially for military tactics but later was found to be helpful in influencing the people, anywhere and in any numbers.

With Lewin’s evil notions grounding the foundation of NTL, he, Ron Lippett (an OSS, now CIA, operative) and Bradford set out “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

In the tiny town of Bethel, Maine, corporate and educational leaders from all over the world came for their special “training”. I was most exposed to some of their tactics when I worked as an audio/visual technician. In that capacity, I would have to make sure each classroom was set up with the desired tools, i.e. easels, markers, paper, tape recorders and sometimes movie cameras and projectors. There were times when I was requested to remain in the room and run tape recorders, movie projectors and cameras. Things that I saw at age 16, I knew somehow were really wrong at all levels but at 16 I had no idea exactly as to why. In addition, I was clueless as to what was actually going on and why and to what degree this “training” was and did have that greatly influenced this nation and the destruction of our society.

The use of mind-altering drugs, human mental abuse and sex where quite common, especially in what NTL called their “sensitivity training” sessions. It was often described as a means of “emotionally tearing somebody down in order to build them back up.” And build them back up as what, I might ask?

The National Training Laboratories‘ website gives us a mission statement and a list of values. I would like, for the purposes of the context of this multi-part series to point out one specific bulleted “value”. “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” It amazes me that anyone can believe they can “create” new knowledge and “create” practice of that knowledge. This again, should give readers a better understanding of “new-science scientists” and where they get their garbage faux “knowledge” that they bring with them into the field.

NTL has worked hand in hand for years with the National Education Association (NEA), which is the largest teachers union today. In addition, Lippett and Bradford founded and ran the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), where one of its objectives was the promotion of illicit drugs into our culture. SPRU trained what today are known as “New-Science Scientists”. The purpose of their training was to implement “Future Shocks”, a tactic where crises are created for the purpose of “shocking” the masses into submission. What easier way to control and train the masses than through fear. We see it everyday…..well, at least those who can see.

Try to imagine how many new NTL trainees have infiltrated our society in the past 65 years. Scary isn’t it and again, NTL is only one small part of the big picture in the planned decline of the United States. I contend that probably by now every university and perhaps every school district in this country, along with local, state and federal governments have NTL, United Nations and other operatives working diligently to complete the change. Hundreds of thousands of “change agents” and we wonder what has happened to our wildlife biologists. Maybe it’s time to look around and ask what has happened to our lives, our heritage and our culture.

Part V will look at what one agency here in America is probably responsible for making sure our schools, television, entertainment, music, politics, etc. are carrying out their brainwashing schemes.

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part III

Wildlife biologists as a whole are not evil people, nor are those who have educated them, our children and all of us from day one. Most are products of the same environment as you and I. I can’t speak directly for you, but I’m not an evil person; although I’m sure there are those who would disagree. As those famous words say, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” The transformation did not happen over night. It has taken no fewer than 100 years to bring the United States to the brink of disaster; a catastrophe as it relates to our social identity and mind set. This change is sure to lead to a complete metamorphosis of such degree that history will not be able to recognize what we have become.

In Part I, I expressed thanks for the few people left in this world who think on their own. Why, I cannot fully explain but nonetheless this chosen band of perceived renegades have done perhaps more for us than any of us know or will ever know.

There exists a YouTube video called, “Slavery and the Eight Veils (truth as you have never imagined)“. For the life of me I cannot understand why the makers of this video chose to choreograph it as some kind of weird revelation, with eerie and bizarre music, etc. The content of the video is compelling and should incite some sort of thoughts in those who view it, even if the information contained therein is not completely factual or can be substantiated. It is thought provoking. The significance of the video is to show that the overwhelming majority of people in this world remain blindly and robotically snuggled within the first veil of slavery, many of which fear truth beyond that veil as they have been programmed to do. Watch the video and then ask yourself where you are and just as importantly, why.

Who and what are the forces that have taken such a grip on our lives that we can no longer think for ourselves and are eager to extol the weltanschauung (articles of faith, canon, catechism, church, confession, conviction, cult, doctrine, dogma, faith, ideology, persuasion, profession, religion, tenet), even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity? It is certainly NOT my father’s way of thinking. And with this comes the emboldening of individuals who force their weltanschauung on others when what made America great was the freedom, liberty, rights and the pursuit of life and happiness without interference from others.

The network of forces at work is vast and I can never cover them all. My intention here is to begin with a few organizations and attempt to convince you that there is more to this sinister event than what you are allowed to see. All of these organizations are linked together for one grand purpose; to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.

The overwhelming majority of us probably have never heard of but a fraction of the non governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, research institutes, non profits etc. that bind and restrict the freedoms of our lives. Oftentimes we hear names of such groups and pay little or no attention to them. It’s time that we all stop doing that. Every time you hear another name of an entity involved in any aspect of your life, no matter how insignificant it may appear, do a bit more research of your own and find out what this group is up to and more importantly, who sponsors it; that is if you any longer care enough.

Let’s first begin with an entity that probably most of you have heard about but may not have knowledge as to exactly what they do, how far their reach is and what is their objective. The United Nations(UN) could entail an entire book but I intend to narrow the focus to education and how their influence is destroying, deliberately, our outdoor heritage.

The effort to “shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America” began before the United Nations (once the League of Nations) was created on August 8, 1945. On that day, the US was the first nation to sign the charter and become a member. This act, in and of itself, is often debated as to whether or not it is constitutional. I’ll leave that decision up to you. I will however point out the many, many treaties the US has signed with the UN and direct you to the fact that they are, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional.

In 1829, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall, wrote: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.” (Emboldening added)

In 1884, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Miller, wrote in reference to the Head Money Cases: “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.”(emboldening added)

When we examine the several treaties the United States has with the United Nations, we see that all of them are illegal and unconstitutional and yet we continue to abide by said treaties while indulging in more. When outdoor sportsmen consider only the treaties signed within the Endangered Species Act, we should be outraged. And presently, President Obama is intending to find a way to turn the sovereign rights of the people of the United States to own firearms over to a non sovereign entity, a club of good ole boys who control all the purse strings and wield the power of a tyrannical despot. Ask yourself how much these treaties have an influence in your life and that of your children, while considering if the fact that Americans own guns by the millions is the last hold out obstacle before the U.S. becomes part of the planned New World Order run by a One World Government head by a dictator.

Turning more directly to education, the entire compass becomes vast, shady and totalitarian, designed to mislead and redirect. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is perhaps the giant, horned administrator of all things educational, scientific and cultural under the auspices of the United Nations. Consider the mission statement:

The mission of the UNESCO Education Sector is to:

*provide international leadership to create learning societies with educational opportunities for all populations.
*provide expertise and foster partnerships to strengthen national educational leadership and the capacity of countries to offer quality education for all.
*work as an intellectual leader, an honest broker and clearing house for ideas, propelling both countries and the international community to accelerate progress towards these goals.
*facilitate the development of partnerships and monitors progress, in particular by publishing an annual Global Monitoring Report that tracks the achievements of countries and the international community towards the six Education for All goals.

What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing really and by design! It all sounds good but tell me who decides what is “quality education”? What is a “learning society”? Number three intimates that UNESCO will decide what you and your child shall learn and you have no say over it. Is that any good?

UNESCO partners with the following (you need to take the time to study and find out about these agencies. After all, they are part of our destruction.):

1.)United Nations Development Program
2.)UNICEF
3.)World Bank
4.)International Labor Organization (for teachers)
5.)World Food Program
6.)Delivering as One
7.)United Nations Population Fund
8.)List of Nations and their organizations that donate money
9.)NGOs
10.)Private Donors (In consideration of a joint initiative with the World Economic Forum, consider these partners.)

Some readers will make comment that all of these programs are good. After all, how can anybody deny that feeding children is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s what the children become subjected to that is wrong and that seemingly nobody cares about, providing they get a free meal. And that too is by design. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book on how to brainwash and proselytize. Lure somebody into your power structure by offering something for free and then let them have it with your ideologue and mind manipulations.

Another of UNESCO’s partners is the Global Partnership for Education. GPE’s stated mission is: “To galvanize and coordinate a global effort to deliver a good quality education to all girls and boys, prioritizing the poorest and most vulnerable.”(emboldening added)

Something to consider in this is that it is the mission of GPE to “galvanize and coordinate a global effort”. Does that mean an effort to reach all over the world or does that mean to educate children all over the world into a global mentality; a brain dead, robotic, mind changing and easily manipulated child who will grow up and do the bidding for those pulling all the strings?

A giant of a “catch” word over the past several years is “sustainability”. How many of you have actually thought about and looked into just what that means? It certainly sounds good but it is not. Sustainability has become a center of focus in just about everything we do in our lives. There is sustainability in education, population, growth, you name it, it’s there. And somebody or something is deciding how many people should inhabit this earth, how much, if any, food you can grow, what you learn in school and what kind of food you can eat.

Sustainability plays a giant roll with environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. Their brainwashed contention is that nature balances itself and that man should not be allowed to harvest game because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE and the people have a right to protect all wildlife.

Is this what you want? This is all done in the name of sustainability and that word comes to us courtesy of the tyrannical United Nations; a non sovereign boys club that has no country, no nation, no government, no army, nothing that identifies it as a sovereign country. But who gave the United Nations the word “sustainability”?

UNESCO is just one small part of the United Nations’ brainwashing organization and yet I’ve only begun to scratch the surface as to how deep the indoctrinating and proselytizing goes; not just in the UN but within the hundreds of organizations sanctioned to destroy you and me and all that was passed down to us from our forefathers.

All of these programs are by design and not just happenstance. As a reader you can choose to ignore any or all of this information and remain conveniently shrouded behind curtain number one, or you can follow along, doing your own research to discover why your local fish and game department has fallen in love with the likes of environmental groups while turning their backs on the sportsmen. This is one of those instances where I said, “even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity.” It makes no sense that what worked and worked well, is flushed down the toilet and replaced with nonsensical doctrine that defies rational thinking; unless your goal is to destroy it.

Due to constraints of time and space, I cannot begin to uncover for you the depth of despair the United Nations brings. Nothing about it is good. I’m sorry if that bunches your undies. If you think the majority of what the UN does is good, you are a victim. Time for a change.

In Part IV, I’ll begin looking at other brainwashing institutions such as, National Training Laboratories, Stanford Research Institute, Rand Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Second Nature, United States Department of Education, the list is a hundred miles long and they all have something in common. I’ll also show you how California is the model for what America is to become all brought to you by the same evil forces running the rest of the planet.

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part II

It is not my intention to foist all the blame for terrible, ridiculous, confusing, misleading and down right poor wildlife management on wildlife science graduates of our universities because that is only part of the picture. It is imperative to keep in mind the entire picture, for the work the new-science scientists are doing would not be working – meaning they are getting away with it – if you and I had not been “trained” to accept it; much like preparing a great Thanksgiving dinner and having no table or guests prepared to eat it.

This concept is probably confusing to most because they cannot see themselves as not holding truth. Most all Americans have knowledge of varying degrees but what is the root of that knowledge? Recently in a mild discussion I had with a friend, I posed the following thought in order to catch a reaction: “Suppose for a moment, if you will, that most everything you have been taught since the day you were born was a lie.”

I got mostly a blank stare and that came as no surprise. After all, who wants to discover they are living a lie? Just think about what that would mean and soon you find how terrifying such an epiphany would be and you want to quickly retreat to the familiar comforts of the environment that’s been created for you.

Let’s return to the list I mentioned in Part I. That was the list of all the things that you believe made America great. That list will vary by generations as the younger our American citizens are, the less they know of what did make America great. If you’ve made a list, whether real or in you mind, on that list you may have included a few things that I talked about in Part I.

I briefly touched on the following:

1.) Our inalienable, God-given rights
2.) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
3.) A citizenry (sportsmen) who care enough to protect a resource

and to this list, as it pertains to hunting, trapping, fishing, etc., we can add:
4.) Outdoor heritage
5.) The increase in strength of the family unit for those in the outdoors together
6.) The freedom to access land for outdoor recreation
7.) Our access to game resources, i.e. management of wildlife to create a sustainable yield.

I am sure you can add to this list but let’s not miss the point. If these are some of the things that made America great, and I wanted to change and/or destroy that, I simply have to attack each one. If this American heritage and culture were deeply engrained into our society, one might expect it would be difficult to one day just say, “No more hunting, trapping and fishing!” That’s not how it’s done. It’s done one step at a time. A painstaking method of changing the thought processes of the people; all the people.

In looking at my list, I would need to teach people that our rights come from man, meaning governments and that there is no God; that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is only designed for evil men who like to kill things to prove their manhood; that the family unit is invaluable and the identity of that unit must be changed; that sportsmen are selfish, irrational killers of innocent animals; that times have changed and there is no need for a heritage grounded in the outdoors; that the family has better things to do, like go to movies, play computer games, cellphones, sex, drugs, etc.; that land belongs to the government and government decides who can access it and when.

Haven’t many of these things already taken place? And we wonder what is happening to our heritage? Unfortunately, because we are all products of the same education/indoctrination/brainwashing system, we fail to even ask why? Who? What? When? Where? How?

What things in this country have influence over you and your children? Again, along with your list of things that made America great, draft another list of the things in your life that have influence over you and your children/family and friends. It may look something like this:
1.) Parents
2.) Friends
3.) God/Church
4.) School/teachers
5.) Television
6.) Music
7.) Books
8.) Sports
9.) A mentor

Have you ever asked yourself who has control over each of these things? Is it you and I? Have you ever considered that perhaps someone or something has control over all of them and their plan is to change and/or destroy all of those things that made our nation great and along with it, the destruction of our heritage?

Many years ago, the world was very large. We and our children didn’t have access to instant information. Our children spent the majority of their time at home with family, having meals together, learning together, working together, playing together, etc. and the parents, having spent the most time with their kids, had the most influence over them. That no longer is the case. Schools, television, computer games, cellphones, music, etc. are the big influences. If you are willing to accept this premise, then if you care about your family, shouldn’t you know who controls what controls your kids and if there’s a plan behind it?

I do not intend to get into a parenting debate with readers but if we can’t get a grasp on this issue, we can never understand why our outdoor heritage, actually our heritage in general, is disappearing before our very eyes. We are losing our identity and this is because our children are having their identity created by someone else rather than mom and dad.

What if there was one entity with the power, money and influence to control nearly every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know it’s happening? Who decides on our children’s school curriculum and why? Are you aware of what your children are watching on television, who’s behind the programming and what they intend to accomplish by offering it to you and your family? The same can be asked about music, books, nearly every aspect of our lives. Why are we complacent and let it happen?

In Part III, I’ll begin to take a look at the actual people and entities that control our lives. It is that control that decides that our outdoor heritage will be destroyed and hopefully we can learn to recognize it and how it is being done. Then and only then, can we hope to stop it.

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part I

I thank God daily that there still exists in this country a few people who think independently; who refuse to blindly accept the “settled” theories, the many studies and the strategic lying of our string-pulled media without questioning. Without these people, surely by now America and the rest of the world would have been devoured by the New World Order lead by a One World Government headed by a dictator. These thinking people are slowing the process and keeping the promoters of the destruction of this country, with the goal of One World Government, somewhat at bay.

Recently, I have told many older friends to sit down and make a list of everything they could think of that made America great; the greatest nation on earth where everyone wanted a piece of the American Dream; where none dared rattle our cage or test our resolve. If we were to examine that list, then wouldn’t it make sense that in order to destroy the greatness of a country like America that all one need do is take each item and change or destroy it?

Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the list shrinks or is completely rewritten reflecting the changing mindset of the American citizen. But why? Is this change, at least from the perspective of those who can recognize it, a natural phenomenon? In other words, is it in man’s nature, that given to him by God, to willingly work at destroying inalienable, God-given rights and all that made America great? Or are there forces at work, out to destroy, item by item, everything that is on that list of America’s greatness and for what purpose would they do this? I hope to answer at least some of these questions to give you a better understanding of why a well-proven wildlife management plan, a plan that in my opinion belongs on the list of what made America great, is being systematically destroyed and replaced with new-science outcome based education. In outcome based education, one chooses the desired outcome and manipulates the data, even devising of false data, to achieve such predilection.

It’s been about 10 years now that I began to turn my focus of writing and researching to hunting, wildlife, wildlife management, the environment, Endangered Species Act and much of all the politics that go, unfortunately, hand in hand now with everything related to the outdoors. It’s easy to castigate “environmentalism” as the root cause, and one’s effort in that would be rightfully justified, but there has to be more to it. Environmentalism contains innumerable evils, which to the trained eye can be recognizable, but who or what is behind environmentalism and is it the same force that is changing the mindset of our young students through education?

Over the years of writing and researching on these topics, it became very clear to me that people just didn’t think (and I use that term very loosely) the same way as previous generations. I wondered how long this had been going on, but more importantly, why.

If I may take a moment to step back to a time in American history when settlers and appointees of governments and commercial establishments took from the resources of wild game until one day it was realized that all taking and no giving was not sustainable – meaning without some kind of restrictions and efforts on the part of man to conserve the resources, there soon would be none.

While not a perfect solution, over time, coupled with a desire of many to sustain viable wildlife species, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was crafted. It wasn’t long before the implementation of this working model restored game species as well as gave the outdoor sportsmen the opportunities for surplus harvests, without depleting the resource. This Model became the envy of the civilized world.

So then, why are we moving away from it and replacing it with contrary, faux science, driven by outcome based strategies that are not working and have led to sizable reductions in game herds and overwhelming increases in large predators; a direct competitor of the hunter/trapper?

To go along with the mentality that exists in wildlife management, that nature is self regulating, there exists a hatred toward man. Man is always perceived as the culprit, the one to point a finger at as the destroyer of wildlife. There is an incessant drum beat of: “the animals were here first”, that “there are just too many people” and that “man is encroaching on everything to do with wildlife” and ruining it; while seldom providing the proper documentation to support such claims. It’s easy to look at places like Westchester County, New York, a suburb of New York City, where on a recent trip along the Saw Mill River Parkway heading for the Tappan Zee Bridge, I witnessed more deer grazing along the highway and in people’s back yards than I saw for an entire week of hunting deer in the deep Maine woods.

I suppose it may be related to the person who calls a glass of water half empty rather than half full, but others see this occurrence and somehow see it as man’s fault. The poor deer/dear! If it is man’s fault for doing too good a job devising ways to protect and conserve deer and other wildlife, then I guess the shoe fits and must be worn. However, these same man haters fail to comprehend history of how things were in America before it was America.

Many have swallowed the pill and believe what they have been told that in pre-Columbian days the forests, hills and plains of this vast and beautiful country were teeming with wildlife everywhere. While there existed areas of abundant wildlife, it is fact that much of our wildlife in this country never inhabited vast areas until man settled and unknowingly or unintentionally created large expanses of wildlife habitat by growing lush crops, lawns, flower beds, working forests, etc. The result now being perhaps the largest populations of most wildlife at any given time in history in this nation.

So, is the problem, if there is one, that man is ruining everything for our wildlife? Or, is there a problem that man has done too good of a job? Consider a recent article found in the Wall Street Journal, written by Jim Sterba. Sterba says that we have done such a remarkable job of conserving wildlife that in many areas there are too many and that presents a host of problems, some of which are very expensive.

It is not my intent to get off on side discussions about wildlife management. It is my intent to point out what I perceive as obvious and I’m sure non existent for others; that our scientists graduating from our education factories are leaving with information that, when applied, appears to be more geared at destroying our wildlife, while ripping man to shreds, rather than improving on a pretty darn good, man-made, wildlife conservation model for management.

Why? Who is teaching these students such things and why? Does it begin once they reach college or are our students being “prepared” to enter the science world long before college graduation day.

Part II will take a closer look.

Share

Costa Rica Bans Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – Most of the links provided for information into the background of Costa Rica’s president, Laura Chinchilla, comes from Wikipedia. Please consider this source while reading and researching the information provided.

Costa Rica, located in Central America, has become the first country in the Americas to ban hunting. According to one news report, “President Laura Chinchilla, who supports the measure, is expected to sign it into law in the next days.” But nobody is asking the real question as to why this is happening. Let’s take a look.

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla was elected in 2010. She is a member of the National Liberation Party and her party holds a very clear majority in the Costa Rican Legislature, of at least a 2 to 1 margin. The National Liberation Party is a member of Socialist International.

Laura Chinchilla graduated from the University of Costa Rica and then went on to receive her master’s degree in public policy from Jesuit-run Georgetown University. She has opposed any efforts to change the country’s labeling of being a Roman Catholic nation; in other words she opposes any kind of separation of church and state.

Socialist International is a group of over 100 countries striving toward what they call, “democratic socialism”. Currently the president of Socialist International, hails from Greece, if that tells you anything.

Of utmost importance to Chinchilla are, “[e]nvironmental protection and sustainability”; those famous and recognizable words from the Vatican-controlled United Nations and Agenda 21. She advocates for the brainwashing of Costa Rican children in promoting “Odyssey 2050“, an animated film that, “motivates and educates young people from around the world into taking action on climate change.”

The linked-to news account of this ban on hunting, comes from France24, a news agency out of France, whose stated mission is to, “cover international current events from a French perspective and to convey French values throughout the world.” So, we know that the report is biased and written in such a way as to promote socialism; a “value” of France. France is currently a member of Socialist International.

However, the news report states that the idea of banning recreational hunting in Costa Rica is a “popular measure”, it is obvious that it is popular in Chinchilla’s National Liberation Party, which, even though in the last election won enough votes, it fell short of 50% of the vote. We really don’t know how the people feel about banning hunting – only the National Liberation Party.

It should not be forgotten that that is one of the outcomes of socialism. As socialism grows, even the faux title of democratic socialism, the people have no say in how their government is run. It is run by the rulers of the government, in this case the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Vatican.

If you do your research and studying on how the Vatican controls aspects of the United Nations, you will see that they actively promote Agenda 21, along with programs that promote that the state governments, or more accurately a one world government, will own all the land and will dictate to the people what they can and can’t do and how, if at all, resources will be used. Most of the United Nations programs support preservation, which can easily be defined as anti-hunting/anti-consumption and anti-ownership.

So, now you know why Costa Rica banned hunting. How far are you willing to allow your government to go before hunting is banned in this country? I know. It will never happen here, right?

Share

Texas Man Threatens Lawsuit For the Stuffing of Two Asses

The use of the word ass to describe a donkey or a mule is Biblical. And I bring the Biblical aspect to this story because the subject of this article claims to have converted from being an atheist and animal rights activist to a “christian”.

But first, to put this entire inane topic into perspective, let me pass on an ass story of old. On a military base in Texas, two privates were given orders to go out in the corner of a field and dig a hole big enough to bury a donkey in. As the men got digging, they began discussing the donkey. As the men dug, they argued whether the animal was a donkey or a mule. Their debate reached the point where the two men were about to come to blows over it, when the base chaplain passed by where the two men were working. He heard the very loud arguing and stepped over to the edge of the hole and looked down in and interrupted the two men. “What on earth are you two men doing and what are you fighting about?”

One man said quickly, “Oh, we’re digging a donkey hole.” The other yelled, “No! It’s a mule hole!” To which the chaplain followed with a question, “What may I ask is a donkey hole and a mule hole?” Then the two men explained the reason they were there digging a hole; to bury a dead donkey in.

“But why the terrible arguing?” the chaplain asked. One man returns, “We were fighting over whether that donkey should be called a donkey or a mule!”

Being a chaplain, he took the opportunity to use Bible references to explain that God called the animal an ass and that according to his teachings, it should be called an ass.

Content, the two men went back to work digging and the chaplain left. A few minutes later, the base commander came walking by, stopped and asked the two men, “Are you digging a donkey hole?” To which one man quickly answered, “Not according to the chaplain! We’re digging an ass hole!”

According to Fox News34 in Lubbock, Texas, Patrick Greene, noted for being an atheist and animal rights activist, is threatening to sue the American Museum of Agriculture located in that city. The reason is because the museum had two old mules, destined for the slaughter house, euthanized to be stuffed and put on display in the museum shown pulling a wagon. Greene calls the action by the museum, “offensive and immoral, and also illegal”.

Greene also said, “They did it for the worst reason of all, for a display in the museum. That is an incredibly horrible reason to do it. So people can look and stare and gawk?”

Oddly enough, back in April of this year, the Huffington Post reported that Greene had seen the light……or maybe he just didn’t know if he was digging a donkey hole or an ass hole. Huffington said that once Greene had fought to have a Nativity scene removed in a Texas county because of his atheism but now had decided to convert to Christianity and to become a pastor.

The report said that after losing his job and getting into some financial difficulty, a Christian organization raised $400 to help him out. That’s what got him to thinking and prompted his so-called “conversion” to Christianity. Once “converted” he began rethinking his positions on evolution and animals. He told one reporter, “There’s been one lingering thought in the back of my head my entire life, and it’s one thought that I’ve never been able to reconcile, and that is the vast difference between all the animals and us.”

Well, evidently Mr. Greene hasn’t thought quite hard enough. I think he best return to the hole until he can determine the difference between a donkey and an ass.

However, the reader who sent me this information, also sent with it a few questions of which I am not in any position to answer, but other readers might have thoughts on them…… or even a snicker.

Did the mules get their own lawyers?
If not, what communal interest can a plaintiff assert?
Is this a sue and settle tactic similar to what the environmentalists do to avoid scrutiny of their lousy science?
Or,is this something that Saul Alinsky mentioned in his book Rules for Radicals in which the threat might be just as effective as the actual action taken?
(In this instance, getting a settlement when no court would order a settlement, might actually cause the threat to gain more than actually suing.)

Share

Where Once A Man’s Word Had Honor, Now Lies Have Become Truth

The dictionary defines a progressive as being someone who “favors progress or reform, especially in political matters”. Progress and reform are both gray issues; meaning there is no specific description of what each means. That in and of itself presents an array of troublesome quandaries that have led this fine nation into a spiraling abyss of immorality, or at least can be perceived by anyone maintaining some semblance of an honest and ethical lifestyle. One such example of “favors progress or reform”, in order to achieve a desired result, is lying. Where once a man’s word retained a wealth of value and was as good as good can get, now lying is not only prevalent but eagerly accepted among the masses of progressive, secular Americans. But why?

One of the things I managed to accomplish this summer while at my camp in the woods of Maine was to read. One particular book I read – one that I bought for .50 cents at the library book sale – was another in a growing collection of books I have about Abraham Lincoln, but in particular the conspiracy to assassinate him. The book is: “The True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865”. The content of the book is essentially the account as told by Louis J. Weichmann.

Weichmann was a friend of John H. Surratt and the Surratt family, including Mary Surratt. He also met and had relationships of varying degrees with many of the so-called conspirators, including John Wilkes Booth, in the killing of Abraham Lincoln and the attempted assassination of others. Because of this association, Weichmann was initially held by authorities as a possible conspirator but eventually much of his testimony was used to convict members of this group.

The book details the testimony and trial of the conspirators (all were charged and tried together). A few years after the initial trial, John H. Surratt was captured and tried and Weichmann details this as well.

Aside from the complicated mess of evidence, real and fabricated, it doesn’t take long to realize that the words and written testimony of those involved in the trial, are held in high esteem by both the author and the courts. Seldom was a person’s word brought into question unless it could be accurately proven to be a falsehood. Time was not wasted attempting to blur the evidence or present a person’s testimony as something it wasn’t in order to have influence over the jury. Words were either fact or fiction and if fiction you better have real proof. If it was proven a man lied, nothing that specific individual had to say or offer in the case had any value and was completely disregarded. Otherwise, a man’s word was seldom questioned as society still viewed a person’s word as something to honor and respect.

Can the same be said for today? We witness courtroom testimony and the words of witnesses, judges, lawyers, etc. and much of what they say, if not an outright lie, is misleading and meant to be so. Each side strives for a desired outcome and subjective morals and subjective truths are used in order to get there.

This is not relegated to just the courtrooms however. Take our media for example. Where once it was mostly taken as a “journalist’s” moral responsibility and obligation to tell only the facts as can be substantiated, now it’s more about ratings and who can be the first to tell a story about an event regardless of the accuracy of the content.

We Americans find ourselves once again mired in another presidential campaign, along with elections of certain member seats in the House and Senate. Honest and unbiased reasoning shows us there is little justification to trust a politician’s word about anything and yet as sure as flies are attracted to garbage, voters are drawn to the words, not perhaps because of the truths they may hold but for the want of what those recitations promise. We care not if anything uttered is truth, just that what they say images our desired subjective truths and morals. We are so fickle!

It is readily discussed these days, and surely who can argue, that what once was news is now entertainment. One coined word for this is “infotainment”. While it may be entertainment, and some members of this “news” entertainment might willingly agree to its description, it certainly is not presented to the masses of people as entertainment. Shouldn’t it be? Or has everything that involves truth and morality become subjective? Of course it has. American people take comedy and entertainment shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Colbert Nation with Stephen Colbert as legitimate news shows. We are so volatile!

At essentially every level of American society, progressiveness, i.e. the “development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level”, exists to some degree. We are all guilty. But what happens when one’s desires and idealism become the driving force in their life? To what lengths will they go and what conservative values are they willing to abandon in order to achieve that thought of as a, “superior level”?

None of this is new. This idea that morals and truth is subjective, meaning that one’s mind and thoughts can rightly justify the devaluing of objective truth, has been around in the minds of men for many centuries. Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher who died at age 42 and lived from 1813 – 1855, said: “…the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.” He also was quoted as saying: “When he is nearest to being in two places at the same time he is in passion; but passion is momentary, and passion is also the highest expression of subjectivity.”

Because someone is passionate about what they might believe, say and do, this can justify subjective truth and the lack of adherence to a moral compass? Wasn’t it James Madison who said that the only way our founding Constitution and Bill of Rights would ever survive was if the nation maintained a moral backbone. It has not. As a matter of fact, the so-called progressives have managed to convince our American youth that the worship of God Almighty played no role in the construction of our constitution and thus the end result is a promotion of subjective morals and truth, leaving a nation lacking in leadership to seek Kierkegaard’s truth – that which is true to me.

When considering this kind of thought and the results of those thoughts, also acknowledge how this enters into the many debates that exist in this country that are “passionate” and often, if not always, embroiled in one’s subjective truth. In the work that I do, this is prevalent in the debates about wildlife management and the environment. Just pick a subject.

The Bible says in John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father except through Me.” For those who still adhere to objective truth and morals, God told us in his Word, that He alone was the Truth. Man’s words therefore can only be held to account of the Word of God in seeking truth. When’s the last time that happened in this country?

For the secular minded, be it told that Nazi Germany based its “truth” to justify the murdering of innocent humans on Darwin’s principle of “survival of the fittest”, therefore discovering their Kierkegaard kind of truth in killing those they believed to be inferior human beings. They also relied on Friedrich Nietzsche’s belief that: “Since there is no God to will what is good, we must will our own good. And since there is no eternal value, we must will the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs.”

Not that the United States has now become Nazi Germany but provided that this nation, including each of us as accountable individuals, as well as our governments, powerful media sources, non governmental agencies, etc., continues down this road of dissing the Truth of God’s word and seeking their own truth to fit their agendas and ideals, we can only expect to witness a more blatant and intended bunch of lies in order to accomplish our goals.

God’s word is Truth. Every moral compass of the world should point to the Truth. When it does not, the lies become commonplace and those creating and perpetuating those lies will have succeeded in convincing themselves that “their truth” is what works for them and therefore all others become the lies.

Share

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant

By George Dovel (Republished with Permission)

In the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 26, the lead articled titled, “What They Didn’t Tell You about Wolf Recovery,” described the ongoing deception by federal and state biologists in their scheme to fill rural areas in the lower 48 states with wolves.

The article referred to 20 years of Dept. of Interior Solicitors (lawyers) changing the number of N. American wolf subspecies covered in the Endangered Species Act from 24, finally to two and back to four – and then to any or all wolves called “gray wolves” or “Canis lupus”. Then it told how FWS reclassified ESA-listed wolves as members of two “Distinct Population Segments”, which it later changed to three until a federal judge denounced the obvious attempt to circumvent the ESA.

The ongoing debate between wildlife scientists who classify species, concerns whether subspecies of elk (red deer), North American bison, grey wolves, etc., exist. Bona fide expert taxonomists include Dr. Valerius Geist who points out that changes in location, habitat, size and appearance alone do not necessarily change the genetic make-up to qualify an animal as a separate sub-specie.

However the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf subspecies – C. l. Irremotus – was documented by physical comparisons of skulls, etc., from larger wolves in 1959:

Page 2 of the 146-page FWS Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan dated August 3, 1987, contains the map showing the historical distribution of Canis lupus Irremotus in the lower 48 states, plus the 1987 distribution in black. It depicts immigration of Irremotus from southern British Columbia into Idaho and from B.C. or southern Alberta into the northwest corner of Montana.

It also shows the two 1987 Irremotus population areas in central Idaho, one of which included the three wolf pack territories mapped by Tim Kimmery between 1988 and 1991 (see Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 35).

Historical Impact on Wolf Subspecies

During the most recent (Pleistocene) ice age, water evaporating from the oceans became part of the glacial ice covering the land. Ocean levels dropped 300 feet or more and the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska dried up.
The exposed land bridge with little snow, later named Beringia, became a refuge for hardy Siberian animals and plants for several thousand years (see below).

Many scientists believe Beringia included a small human population from Siberia that was prevented from continuing into North America for 5,000 years by the North American ice sheets. Geologists report these continental ice sheets were 5,000-10,000 feet in depth and extended south in some places to the 40th Parallel below what is now the U.S.-Canadian border.

The artists’ three views of Beringia published by “Wikipedia” illustrate the changes that have occurred in the “Bering Land Bridge” during the last 18,000 years. But there is still disagreement among biologists about when, where and how several current mammal species first arrived on the North American Continent.

Subspecies Had Limited Opportunity to Crossbreed

Since 1995 a number of wildlife biologists have accepted the determination by Nowak that five subspecies of gray wolf (Canus lupus) inhabited North America during the early 20th Century. There is also agreement that Canis lupus occidentalis (the large gray wolf transplanted to Yellowstone and Central Idaho by FWS in 1995) had virtually no opportunity to influence the genetic make-up of coastal wolves in SE Alaska and Yukon and portions of five other Canadian Provinces where it existed.

For thousands of years the ice between interior Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia and the coastal area prevented the occidentalis wolves from mixing with the smaller wolves defined as C. lupis ligoni by Goldman in 1944. And the intensive efforts to kill all wolves in the early 1900s also left few of the large wolves alive in most areas where they might have mixed with the native wolves.

The map below in the study titled, “Legacy Lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated U.S. gray wolves (Canis lupis),” published by Leonard et al in the 2005 Vol. 14 issue of Molecular Ecology, shows the five primary subspecies that existed in the early 1900s. The bold black line indicates the northern limit of gray wolf eradication that occurred in the 48 contiguous United States and Canada.

In 1995, C.l. nubilus, the primary subspecies common in the U.S. and Canada mainland included ligoni from the west coast of Canada, irremotus from the Northern Rocky Mountains and labradorius from Labrador. The “a” to “z” letters scattered on the map represent original locations of the various museum specimens whose DNA were recorded in the study.

A similar study titled, “Phylogeography of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest”, by Weckworth et al (published in the 2010 (2) issue of the Journal of Mammology) used basically the same map, along with an expanded inset to illustrate locations of testing for the genetic difference between the smaller coastal wolves and the 30% larger occidentalis wolves from the Alaska and Yukon interiors.

Both of these DNA studies emphasize that the nubilus wolves migrated northward to populate Canada as the ice sheets and glaciers melted. They point out that the smaller wolves existed in the south before the larger wolves migrated into northern Canada, and the Weckworth study suggests the coastal wolves should be listed as a separate individual subspecies.

Court Allows Transplants – Then Orders Removal

Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.

Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.

Judge “Passes the Buck” to Appeals Court

They quickly pointed out that it would not be possible to even locate most of the wolves – much less capture them. But even if that were possible, both Canadian Provinces refused to allow the wolves to return and there were not enough zoos willing to accept several hundred wild wolves so killing most was the only option.

Judge Downes could have prevented this disaster from occurring by simply putting wolf introduction on hold three years earlier until his decision was reached. But the second time he did essentially the same thing by later staying execution of his removal order pending an appeals decision by the 10th Circuit Court.

On January 13, 2000, five years after the first large Canadian wolves were introduced, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the December 1998 Wyoming District Court ruling that the reintroduction program was unlawful and should be revoked. The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population.
The fact that the resident wolves coexisted with abundant big game populations and with negligible impact on livestock and human activity was already a matter of record in 1994. But on August 12, 1994, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs sent a letter to Charles Lobdell telling him to stop issuing statements to the public advising that the number of reported resident wolves was increasing.

Bangs’ letter advised that FWS planned to introduce wolves from Canada and said: “From this day forward…confirmed wolf activity (will only include) individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radio-collared and monitored in the wild.” He also said he had transferred $9,000 to the FWS Boise Field Office to search for wolves and organize flights to locate any radio-collared wolves that might be in Idaho or the Yellowstone area during the summer and fall.

Bangs also included key issues to be presented to the public consistently by FWS:
“1. (I)t is likely that wolf populations would ultimately recover without reintroduction and breeding pairs of wolves would likely occur in Idaho before they would occur (in) Yellowstone.

4. Experimental populations will not knowingly contain a significant portion of the territory of any naturally occurring breeding pair that has successfully raised young. However once wolves are released all wolves in the area will be treated as experimental animals.”

Despite reported wolf sightings by more then 120 outfitters, trappers and others in less than two months, most in the same location where Kemery mapped three wolf pack areas from 1988-1991, and despite the USFS road closure to protect existing wolves (see Bulletin 35), Bangs dumped Canadian wolves halfway between the two known native wolf locations guaranteeing their extermination.

In February of 2012, I forwarded the Weckworth DNA study, without comment, to Dr. Valerius Geist. The following was his reply:

“Thank you, George, I have seen this study. To me it suggests that there was indeed a remnant of native wolves in Idaho that were finally done away with by introduced wolves from Canada. The native wolves would have been of the same clad as the coastal wolves. Anyway, that’s testable since some museum specimens of native Idaho wolves are still available for genetic analysis. However, somebody competent and trustworthy needs to do it. Cheers, Val Geist.”

Share

Anti-Federalist Paper, Brutus VIII, January 10, 1788 – Our Financial Fortune Was Told

*Editor’s Note* I’ve been reading the Anti-Federalists’ Papers and am amazed at how accurate the predictions and warnings issued by such anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Robert Yates, James Monroe and others. While reading “Brutus VIII” dated January 10, 1788, (some believe Brutus to be Robert Yates), I discovered that “Brutus” believed that the new constitution wrongfully gave the Legislature untethered authority to borrow money and amass debt and, “create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink.”

It was my thought that this article written some 224 years ago predicted what we are faced with today in debt so large that…….. Today, when anyone be so bold as to express what “Brutus” did 224 years ago, are immediately demonized and labeled an extremist, among other things.

Brutus VIII, January 10, 1788

The next powers vested by this constitution in the general government, which we shall consider, are those, which authorise them to “borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to raise and support armies.” I take these two together and connect them with the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, because their extent, and the danger that will arise from the exercise of these powers, cannot be fully understood, unless they are viewed in relation to each other.

The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the clause so often before referred to, authorises the passing any laws proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probably, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. — By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge. If this be a just remark, it is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.

It may possibly happen that the safety and welfare of the country may require, that money be borrowed, and it is proper when such a necessity arises that the power should be exercised by the general government. — But it certainly ought never to be exercised, but on the most urgent occasions, and then we should not borrow of foreigners if we could possibly avoid it.

The constitution should therefore have so restricted, the exercise of this power as to have rendered it very difficult for the government to practise it. The present confederation requires the assent of nine states to exercise this, and a number of the other important powers of the confederacy — and it would certainly have been a wise provision in this constitution, to have made it necessary that two thirds of the members should assent to borrowing money — when the necessity was indispensable, this assent would always be given, and in no other cause ought it to be.

Share

Lewis and Clark – No Game, Lots of Game and Lots of Wolves

I’m winding down my rereading from the Journals of Captains Lewis and Clark. Lewis and Clark separated into two expeditions at Traveler’s Rest during the return trip. Lewis takes the northern route, mostly retracing the route out, with some detours, while Clark swung south, eventually connecting up with the Yellowstone River (the River Rochejhone as Clark calls it in his journal), until they rejoined expeditions on the Missouri River someplace not too far south of the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers.

What is clear in reading the journals is that for the most part the Lewis and Clark expedition struggled to find any game to eat from perhaps what is now Great Falls, Montana all the way to the West Coast. The men lived mostly on dried and mashed roots the Indians taught them about and dogs they traded with the natives for. Sometimes finding anything to eat was a real struggle.

On the return trip home, the further east and south the travelers went, the more game, i.e. buffalo, elk and deer, they found. At times, the buffalo would be so numerous while crossing the Missouri River, Captain Lewis and his men had to wait in their canoes in order to pass.

But what also is apparent is that when there was ample game, there were ample wolves and when there was no game, there were no wolves.

After Lewis and Clark rejoined forces south of the confluence of Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, Clark writes in his journal that one night when the soldiers where sleeping, one man who had fallen asleep, had left his hand exposed. During the night a wolf came by and took a chomp out of it.

From the journals one can easily see that things weren’t “pristine” in a lot of places.

Share