October 16, 2018

The Mythical Magic of the Much Maligned Mutt (Wolf)

Perhaps not since Franklin Roosevelt has so much credit been given a person or thing for accomplishing things they never did or did and messed them up. Once again people calling themselves scientific researchers are crediting the existence of grey wolves in Yellowstone for helping to increase the grizzly bear population. This supposedly is being accomplished because wolves keep the elk from eating the berry plants. Information on this “study” can be found at Science World Report.

It appears that not all scientists are impressed with the conclusions drawn by the researchers conducting the berry bear study. As a matter of fact, Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, says that, “YNP [Yellowstone National Park] bear research/management has been and is a scientific FRAUD!”

And as anyone who has come to know the work of Dr. Kay, he doesn’t spout off without providing the documentation to support his own claims. First, is a copy of a recent email Dr. Kay sent to a number of readers about the berry bear study and links to his own research and information on the subject. Please feel free to educate yourself.

Dr. Kay’s email:

… please see the attached pdf file[s] I doubt that Ripple et al. ever had an original idea in their lives – as explained in the attached article[s], I was the first researcher to measure berry production in YNP, as well as the first to note that YNP’s bears did NOT eat berries – unlike every other bear population that has been studied anywhere. This is because elk had destroyed all the berry producing shrubs in the park. All this, of course, has been completely ignored by IAGBST biologists for over 40 years – which is why YNP bear research/management has been and is a scientific FRAUD!

In 1491 you could count the number of grizzlies in North America on one or two hands, because grizzlies were simply large packages of fat meat that native hunters killed AT WILL. There are more grizzlies in NA today than there were in 1491 – a FACT I can prove.

Please see section 13 of the second pdf file, and Figure 8f in the third pdf file

Charles

Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology
Jon M. Huntsman School of Business

Yellowstone: Ecological Malpractice by Charles E. Kay June 1997

Browsing by native ungulates effects on shrub and seed in greater Yellowstone By Charles E. Kay

Were Native People Keystone Predators?

A Continuous-Time Analysis of Wildlife Observations Made by Lewis and Clark in 1804-1806

by Charles E. Kay January–March 2007 Canadian Field-Naturalist 121

Share

Exploring Old Dump Sites

Recently, Milt Inman shared with readers about some of the dangers that might lurk hidden from easy view when exploring and investigating old sites where houses and farms once stood. During these exploratory expeditions, one might also find a treasure trove of other interesting items and artifacts.

Below are pictures of an old dump site, actually located on my own land here in Maine. The original property and old farm that my wife and I purchased several years ago, dates back to the late 18th century. For those who don’t know, most all of these older places had a dump site where cans, bottles and other assorted undesirables were piled. Food never got tossed out as any leftovers fed the animals.

When investigating old home sites, a favorite of many is to try to locate the dump site and see what kind of goodies can be found. My wife dug into our dump site, as can be seen in the first photograph. Notice the pile of old tin cans, which made up the bulk of what was found in this pile of refuse.

However, with some persistent and cautious digging, a few old bottles can be found – a sample of which is shown in the second photograph. Do they have any real value? Perhaps, but it takes some investigating to learn which, if any, are worth keeping or selling and which ones might just make a decorative piece placed back in the old barn window.

dumpsite

Photo by Tom Remington
bottles

Share

What Does Your “Gun Free Zone” Look Like?

gunfreezone

Share

Eric Arthur Blair: Animal Farm Nineteen Eighty-Four

orwell

Or maybe too many people did!

Share

Nixon Resigns

If you listen to this resignation speech, regardless of what you thought of Nixon, and maybe many of you never knew the man, listen to a couple of the reasons he gives for resigning. At issue is his concern that with such little support in Congress, which should translate down to the people as well, he fears that due to distrust, important issues (say like a Middle East war, another attack on a U.S. embassy, terror attack at home, etc.) it will hurt the American people.

Share

Isle Royale’s “Pristine Wilderness?”

I guess it’s time to roll out another story about the insanity that seems to have infected so many concerning wolves and moose on Michigan’s Isle Royale. I’ll spare readers much of the details of the history but in a brief remark state that scientists have been “studying” the relationship between wolves and moose on the island for many years. At issue now is that the inbred wolves are all dying off and the cult of wolf worshipers are near flogging themselves over what to do; let “nature” take it’s course or bring in more wolves?

Perhaps the most important aspect of this so-called study, is the belief by those conducting the studies and the hundreds of thousands of brain dead followers, that somehow, wolves and moose isolated on an island in the midst of Lake Superior, resembles an “ecosystem” found just about anywhere else in the world. But then again, it is impossible to try to convince “The True Believers” that any of this matters.

Dr. Charles Kay, wildlife ecologist at Utah State University, in an email exchange, had this to say about Isle Royale and the wolf and moose studies.

The entire study has been a waste of time because it is a unique situation and the results are NOT APPLICABLE ANY PLACE ELSE IN NORTH AMERICA——and anyone who says it is applicable to other areas, is committing scientific fraud!

This is much like Dr. Valerius Geist’s title he bestows upon the believers of “balance of nature.” He calls it “intellectual garbage.”

To give you an example of the insanity behind Isle Royale, and all the clap trap that gets repeated and perpetuated, you are welcome to read a fairly recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (snicker), written by Paul Voosen.

There’s little worth repeating and bringing up in the article but I would like to point out a couple of things that were written, which I think is a reflection of the entire article’s inaccuracies and unbelievable commentary. The author writes:

The service [National Park Service] debated what to do [about an outbreak of parvovirus] then, as it wrangled with fears about interfering in a pristine wilderness. But given global warming, it’s hard today to see any wilderness as pristine. (emboldening added)

Pristine wilderness? Are you kidding me? And is this author intimating, or perhaps he’s just coming straight out and saying so, that there are no longer any “pristine wildernesses” because of global warming? When anyone writes this sort of stuff, doesn’t it give cause to question everything else written? It should!

It is fraud to claim Isle Royale as a “pristine wilderness”, in the 1980s or much of anytime prior to nearly 6,000 years ago. If you knew the history of the island and called it “pristine” that’s fraud. If you don’t know about the history then that’s a reflection of lazy ignorance and poor journalism. Perhaps I should blame that on global warming; something environmentalists can relate to.

Here’s what Wikipedia, that source even lazy people use for reference, has to say about the history of Isle Royale.

In prehistoric times, large quantities of copper were mined on Isle Royale and the nearby Keweenaw Peninsula. The region is scarred by ancient mine pits and trenches up to 20 feet deep. Carbon-14 testing of wood remains found in sockets of copper artifacts indicates that they are at least 5700 years old. In Prehistoric Copper Mining in the Lake Superior Region, published in 1961, Drier and Du Temple estimated that over 1.5 billion pounds of copper had been mined from the region. However, David Johnson and Susan Martin contend that their estimate was based on exaggerated and inaccurate assumptions……….

In the mid-1840s, a report by Douglass Houghton, Michigan’s first state geologist, set off a copper boom in the state, and the first modern copper mines were opened on the island.[9] Evidence of the earlier mining efforts was everywhere, in the form of many stone hammers, some copper artifacts, and places where copper had been partially worked out of the rock but left in place. The ancient pits and trenches led to the discovery of many of the copper deposits that were mined in the 19th century.[7] The remoteness of the island, combined with the small veins of copper, caused most of the 19th century mines to fail quickly.[citation needed] Between the miners and commercial loggers, much of the island was deforested during the late 19th century.

I think any idiot can plainly see that Isle Royale was no “pristine wilderness” nor was the reason for that caused by global warming.

In addition to the false claim that Isle Royale is or once was a “pristine wilderness”, according to Dr. Charles Kay, there were never any wolves or moose on the island.

…before Whites, Native Americans ran the entire island—-and there were NO MOOSE OR WOLVES only a few caribou.

The important thing to remember about the years of studies conducted on wolves and moose on Isle Royale; this information and knowledge gathered can then be used on all the other islands in North America that have wolves and moose on them, exactly like Isle Royale. Now that’s important stuff right there!

Share

What Would Barack Obama Say to Thomas Jefferson?

At Ohio State University, May 5, 2013, President Barack Obama, the only president that I am aware of who told a reporter during an interview that the Founding Fathers got the Constitution all wrong, continued in his willful disregard and ignorance toward the foundation of America, by telling graduating students that they should “reject these voices”; that is those who warn of government tyranny. Here is the text of his comments:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

What I have not heard or read anyone pointing out is the terrible, incorrect and deliberately misleading statement the President makes right after he tells graduates to reject the voices that warn of governmental tyranny. The only focus seems to be on the fact that President Obama dared to swim against the flow, much like his statement of the error of the Founding Fathers, and tell young and influential graduates, to disregard, nay, “reject” any voice that might warn of tyranny.

President Obama attempts to tell the world that those of us who continuously warn of the dangers of despotic rule, believe that what, “they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

This is so much not the truth! Those of us who remonstrate the dangers of dictatorial/despotic/tyrannical rule are the ones who understand and cherish the actual foundation of this country. Barack Obama is falsely placing himself as one who affirms self-rule, while having done all he can so far in his nearly 5 years in office to destroy that self-rule and put it into the hands of government – himself to be exact. Few will argue that Government is too big. Such statements certainly supersede any philosophical notions of what the role of government should be.

The President’s tactics might work on some people in this country today but what about our Founding Fathers, who the President claims got it all wrong because they DID NOT give the Executive Branch of Government all the power.

Our current President has shown little respect for the foundation of this country, namely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His comments at Ohio State University once again bring to the surface his real feelings about what made this country great, crafted its identity, and most importantly why the United States even exists today.

Let’s turn the clock back a bit. When it came time to sever ties with King George of England, Thomas Jefferson began work on the Declaration of Independence. It took time and much debate but it was finally signed in Congress on July 4, 1776. What was it that went on in Colonial America at this time that the people felt the need, knowing war would be imminent, to declare their separation from England, their desires to be free of tyranny? The Declaration of Independence tells us.

The people in America had lost all say in how they could govern. They were being taxed without any kind of representation. In short, it was decided that King George was a tyrant and people didn’t come to the New World to be ruled by a dictator. Many people warned of a tyrannical government in England who controlled Colonial America.

Were the citizens of this country in 1776 told to reject the voices claiming tyranny? If Barack Obama was alive during this age, would he have stood up to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and all the rest, and told them to reject the voices of these men and so many others warning to tyrannical rule? Could he have convinced the Founders that King George’s tyranny was no threat?

The threat and reality of tyranny was important enough and prominent enough in 1776, that no fewer than 4 times does the actual document of the Declaration of Independence state that King George was a tyrant.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

He [King George] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Surely, these men understood that free people cannot exist under the rule of a tyrant. Americans sought to be free. Those in this country, the United States of America, who lift up their voices against tyranny and expose all efforts for governmental rule that runs against freedom and self-rule, are doing the best public service possible. Any political leader, president included, who would willfully tell American citizens to reject the voices that warn against despotic rule, is, in fact, a tyrant and should be rightfully exposed for that.

Share

Immigration for Freedom – Immigration for Freebies

Immigration is a hot button issue in the U.S. these days, I suppose hidden behind the shroud of the claims that we need to tighten up boarder security to keep out terrorists and mixed in with this tale we hear of the criminals, unchecked because of lax immigration laws and the cost to the taxpayer, etc.

While Congress puts up a false front of pretending to debate immigration “for the good of all”, it appears nobody cares much about the grass roots of immigration, what it was, what it meant and in particular what was expected of those wanting to come to America.

Few even realize that immigration was mostly sold as a dream vacation for some, as greedy capitalists wanted cheap labor to bulk up their profit margins. And we can’t overlook the millions of immigrants sent to the United States by the Catholic Church in order to gain global dominance and control as many countries and their governments and their education institutes as possible.

I suppose the Pilgrims were some of our first immigrants, but even from the time of 1620 until the early 1900s, what drove people to want to come to this country is a far cry from what it is today. Consider the differences between once when the sales pitch was about being a free and ideally an equal chance to accomplish what every other man could. Today, not totally unlike many years past, we still have greedy capitalists seeking to exploit the foreigners for money, the Catholic Church still looking for a super majority of followers and we can easily add to that now, the slimy politicians looking for more voters who will keep them in their cushy and corrupt jobs as out of touch, wealthy criminals who hide behind the red, white and blue.

I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I have no issue with letting anyone who wants to come to this country for all the right reasons, to do so. Once America had an identity and dream for a future that is very much unlike what reality has bestowed upon us today. Why is it that we feel compelled to give immigrants more than they need to come here?; i.e. food stamps, welfare, education, driver license, etc. The immigrants of the past came and got a piece of paper that told them they had a right to be here and take care of themselves, by themselves and if they wanted they could work toward citizenship and assimilate into an America that was free and independent. Wanting a chance to better themselves and a fair shot at doing so, separated the wheat from the chaff. This is what made America great. An immigrant had to really want to be an American; an American once defined.

My how things have changed.

Over the weekend I read a short book by Mary Antin called: They Who Knock at Our Gates – A Complete Gospel of Immigration. The Riverside Press, Cambridge – 1914. The book examines the justification of immigration as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; that the reasons for America to want to be free from the despotic reign of King George, so too must all humans be given that same right.

But as I’ve tried to point out, immigration and what drives people to seek refuge in this country has drastically changed. To prove this point, below I’ve typed out an excerpt from the book that is describing what kind of person(s) wants to come to America and why. Compare this with what is happening today.

“I have little sympathy with declaimers about the Pilgrim Fathers,
who look upon them all as men of grand conceptions and superhuman foresight. An entire ship’s company of Columbuses is what the world never saw.” – James Russell Lowell

It takes a wizard critic like Lowell to chip away the crust of historic sentiment and show us our forefathers in the flesh. Lowell would agree with me that the Pilgrims were a picked troop in the sense that there was an immense preponderance of virtue among them. And that is exactly what we must say of our modem immigrants, if we judge them by the sum total of their effect on our country.

Not a little of the glory of the Pilgrim Fathers rests on their own testimony. Our opinion of them is greatly enhanced by the expression we find, in the public and private documents they have left us, of their ideals, their aims, their expectations in the New World. Let us judge our immigrants also out of their own mouths, as future generations will be sure to judge them. And in seeking this testimony let us remember that humanity in general does not produce one oracle in a decade. Very few men know their own
hearts, or can give an account of the impulses that drive them in a particular direction. We put our ears to the lips of the eloquent when we want to know what the world is thinking. And what do we get when we sift down the sayings of the spokesmen among the foreign folk? An anthem in praise of American ideals, a passionate glorification of the principles of democracy.

Let it be understood that the men and women of exceptional intellect, who have surveyed the situation from philosophical heights, are not trumpeting forth their own high dreams alone. If they have won the
ear of the American nation and shamed the indifferent and silenced the cynical, it is because they voiced the feeling of the inarticulate mob that welters in the foreign quarters of our cities. I am never so clear as to the basis of my faith in America as when I have been talking with the ungroomed mothers of
the East Side. A widow down on Division Street was complaining bitterly of the hardships of her lot, alone in an alien world with four children to bring up. In the midst of her complaints the children came in from school. “Well,” said the hard-pressed widow, “bread isn’t easy to get in America, but the children can go to school, and that’s more than bread. Rich man, poor man, it’s all the same: the
children can go to school.”

The poor widow had never heard of a document called the Declaration of Independence, but evidently she had discovered in American practice something corresponding to one of the great American principles, the principle of equality of opportunity, and she valued it more than the necessaries of animal life. Even so was it valued by the Fathers of the Republic, when they deliberately incurred the dangers of a war with mighty England in defense of that and similar principles.

Share

Cuban Communist Survivor Gives Lesson on Understanding Rights of People

Tells panel that they don’t know what liberty is because they have never lost it.

Share

Guns Will Be Confiscated, But How?

Those who seek truth are not afraid to examine the words of all those in positions of power in order to determine what is and what isn’t the truth that drives an agenda or seeks a desired outcome. The gun ownership and rights to self protection debate is full of facts, lies, half-truths, rhetoric, emotions and very little truth.

Neocon and warmonger, John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, might give us a bit of a glimpse into how the Government of the United States and/or an international power, i.e. United Nations/One World Government, intends to unwittingly disarm the American people.

Very few people understand the U.S. Constitution. Even those who claim they do, in my opinion, may be wrong. But, I’m not here to try to convince you that I understand it. I don’t, but I’m working on it. I do know enough about it to know I know little about it.

If we examine some common themes of the Constitution, i.e. Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Treaties, etc., it will help readers form a basis and assist them in understanding what Bolton and Yoo are saying about treaties and executive orders. Whether it’s the Obama Administration or the next or next, they will succeed in getting guns away from the American population. Historical odds are stacked heavily in favor of that happening. I will repeat myself one more time and say that the millions and millions of guns owned by a few million U.S. citizens is the only and last deterrent keeping us away from total despotic and tyrannical rule. Do away with the guns and everything else becomes a cake walk.

Looking at two recent Supreme Court rulings – Heller v. District of Columbia and MacDonald v. Chicago – we see that the Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. The same Court also made known that both the governments and the individuals have limits to power and rights, respectively.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution defines the executive powers of the president and also lays the groundwork for Treaties and states that lawful treaties become the supreme rule of law.

We also know that on April 2, 2013, the United States signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Law states that such signed treaties must be approved by a super majority of the U.S. Senate and, of course, signed by the president. Only then can a treaty become the supreme laws that governs us…….or not?

Historically, we have been witness to presidential power through executive orders. There is always debate as to whether certain executive orders violate the constitutional authority granted the president in defining his or her executive powers. The truth is, executive orders have been used for many, many years, but does the use and abuse of them make it right or legal? Just how far can a president go to accomplish certain things a Congress will not permit? We’ve seen some far stretches.

Executive orders are intended to be used so presidents can clarify and make unsubstantial changes to existing laws. However, many would argue that for several previous administrations abuse of such powers are an overreach of executive power. Some want to blame Barack Obama for being the first to abuse the privilege of executive privilege, but that abuse existed long before President Obama was even born.

In consideration of all this and the fact that we can easily see that the Constitution has been twisted and turned and “reinterpreted”, not unlike the way it was done in ancient times of Roman history that led to the destruction of republics and the rights of people, fear should grip the people today that we are headed in the same direction and that eventually, a treaty, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, will be implemented by executive order. This is what is known as tyranny.

But is it probable or even possible? From what I am seeing, I think it’s easy to state that it’s possible and if things don’t change, it will be probable.

I will leave you with an excerpt of what Bolton and Yoo wrote concerning this.

The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”

Opponents of capital punishment have used treaties to press the Supreme Court to stop the death penalty in Texas. Women’s rights groups advocate an international convention that would achieve the goals of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. And supporters of bans on “hate speech” invoke international norms to defeat First Amendment objections. There also is an international legal doctrine that during the period when a country has signed but not yet ratified a treaty, it must take no measures that defeat the treaty’s object and purposes. Under some liberal theories, this would allow the president to put some measures of the new arms treaty into effect by executive order.

Note: There really is no need to qualify any part of this discussion as being the fault of “liberal theories” and “liberals, and as somehow a battle between left and right, democrat or republican.” Both sides can claim equal fault or credit in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. It’s all about power and control, divided equally among power and control hungry tyrants.

Share