March 23, 2018

If It’s Brown, It’s Down




High Speed Double-Barrel Pistol



Ethanol takes policy blow from the Environmental Protection Agency

By Editorial Board, Published: November 17 – Washington Post

ONCE TOUTED as a climate-friendly renewable alternative to foreign oil, the corn-based liquid ethanol has been exposed as an environmental and economic mistake. Lured by federal subsidies, Midwestern farmers have devoted millions of acres to corn that might otherwise have been devoted to soil conservation or feed-grain production.

Meanwhile, a “dead zone” fed by fertilizer runoff spreads at the mouth of the Mississippi and production costs throughout the grain-dependent U.S. food industry rise. At the end of 2011, the ethanol industry lost a $6 billion per year tax-credit subsidy. And on Friday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered yet another policy defeat for ethanol – which is to say, a victory for common sense.<<<Read More>>>


History Falsifies Climate Alarmist Sea Level Claims

By Robert W. Endlich

USA – -( Sea levels are rising rapidly! Coastal communities are becoming more vulnerable to storms and storm surges! Small island nations are going to disappear beneath the waves!

Climate alarmists have been making these claims for years, trying to tie them to events like “Superstorm” Sandy, which was below Category 1 hurricane strength when it struck New York City in October 2012, and Typhoon Haiyan, which plowed into the low-lying central Philippines in November 2013.

For alarmists, it does not seem to matter that the strength and frequency of tropical storms have been decreasing in recent years, while the rate of sea level rise has fallen to about seven inches per century. Nor does it seem to matter that the lost lives and property have little to do with the storms’ sheer power. Their destructive impact was caused by their hitting heavily populated areas, where governments had not adequately informed citizens of the size and ferocity of imminent storm surges, too few people had evacuated – and people, buildings and emergency equipment were insufficiently prepared to withstand the furious storm onslaughts.

The alarmist cries are not meant to be honest or factual. They are intended to generate hysterical headlines, public anxiety about climate change, and demands for changes in energy policies and use.<<<Read More>>>


It’s Time NOAA Got Out of the Hurricane Forecasting Business

*Editor’s Note* – I live in a hurricane prone zone. I can say, without reservation, that the overwhelming majority of people, also living in this region, mostly disregard what NOAA or the local weatherman has to say about hurricanes and their lack of ability in predicting them. When brought up in discussions, most people snicker and make some comment about the foolishness of paying any attention as “they are never right” in making hurricane predictions. This remains true, not only in long term predictions, but in the short term as well. There were past hurricanes in Florida where people took the advice of government people controllers and ordered or suggested evacuations only to find out in the end the people evacuated right into the direct path of the hurricane. Planned or unplanned?

Yes, these storms are unpredictable in the paths they will take and when you combine that with the failure (or seeming failure) of NOAA to accurately predict storms, this leaves or creates a situation where people actually become more vulnerable to the pending disasters of storms when and if they do make landfall. Because of this, there could very easily be more loss of life by not being properly prepared and/or not taking the necessary steps to avoid being dumped on by a hurricane or other strong storms.

Some, as in the below post, chalk this epic failure on the inability to, not only predict but to come clean on a proper assessment of events pasts. Perhaps then, we should begin to more seriously consider that the actions of NOAA and other governmental agencies, is, in fact, designed to cause people to disregard warnings and such as part of a greater scheme to reduce populations.

Whether major storms, i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, rain events, etc., are natural or man made, or a combination of both, a designed population of ill prepared people could result in serious death toll numbers. Please consider.

Agency Consistently Shows It Possesses Neither Foresight Nor Hindsight

2013 Hurricane Season Might be the Weakest EVER, With 2 Hurricanes, None Major

Yet NOAA Predicted 7-11 Hurricanes, 3-6 Major

Washington, DC – The following is the statement of National Center for Public Policy Research President David A. Ridenour on the conclusion of 2013 Atlantic hurricane season:

Saturday marked the official end of the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season and once again, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proved itself utterly incapable of accurately forecasting hurricanes.

It’s time NOAA stop issuing hurricane forecasts.

In May, the agency predicted an “active or extremely active” hurricane season, forecasting that there would be 7-11 hurricanes, 3-6 major hurricanes, and 13-20 named storms.

The year’s final tally: 2 hurricanes, no major hurricanes, and 13 named storms… not even “close enough for government work.”

This marked the 7th time in the past ten years that NOAA’s hurricane forecast has been wrong and its epic failure this year rivals even its disastrous forecast in 2005, when it predicted there would be 7-9 hurricanes and there ended up being 15.

NOAA’s forecasts were only accurate in 2008, 2010 and 2011. In 2010 and 2011, the actual number of hurricanes just barely fell within NOAA’s forecast range, despite being uncharacteristically large.

Perhaps NOAA could be forgiven, somewhat, if it at least got the post-season analysis right. But it can’t even do that.

In its November 25 mea culpa, sans the culpa (NOAA never mentions its forecast nor its spectacular failure), NOAA asserts that the season ranks as “the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.”

This is a bit misleading, to say the least. Most Americans would see this statement and conclude that there were five other years since 1950 with less storm activity.

But that’s not what it means.

What NOAA it means is that if you only count the storms that our government noticed, then it is the sixth least active since 1950.

That’s akin to a Keystone Kop facing once direction with all sorts of criminal activity behind his back saying, “No crime around here.”

NOAA is attempting to suggest a degree of precision that it simply does not possess.

It wasn’t until 1966, with the launch of ESSA-1 and ESSA-2, that we had a weather satellite system in place.

Prior to this system, the odds were pretty good that storms – in particular those outside of shipping and travel lanes – would be missed entirely.

Since the start of the satellite age, our capabilities have improved dramatically and this makes it appear as though the number of tropical storms and hurricanes have increased, even when they haven’t.

In terms of the number and intensity of hurricanes, the 2013 hurricane season might be the weakest… EVER.

This year, there were just two weak category 1 hurricanes. The 1982, 1930, 1919, 1917 and 1890 seasons also had two or fewer hurricanes, but at least one in each year was a major hurricane.

Dating back to 1850, there were just a handful of years – 1925 (one), 1914 (zero), 1907 (zero), and 1905 (one) – in which fewer hurricanes were recorded than this year. But because these seasons occurred prior to the advent of satellites, the odds are good that there were more hurricanes in some, if not all, of these years that went undetected.

Being wrong so frequently poses a more significant risk to NOAA than just a little embarrassment. It threatens to undermine the agency’s credibility, undermine the public’s faith in even its short-range forecasts, and ultimately place lives at risk.

And NOAA isn’t alone in undermining it credibility by suggesting a greater level of certainty than it possesses.

For years now, we’ve been told that there is a scientific consensus that our burning of fossil fuels is creating dangerous warming of the planet.

Now the public has learned that we’re in the midst of a 17-year “pause” in global warming that not one of the 73 climate models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Climate on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report predicted.

In 2002, commenting on the possibility that Iraq had supplied or might supply Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to terrorists, Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, famously said: “…there are known knowns… There are known unknowns… But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

NOAA, the IPCC and other voices of science should be as candid and honest.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


R.I.P. Buck – Wolves Kill Retired Ranch Horse

By Heather Smith Thomas

An eastern Idaho ranch family was devastated in late summer this year when they discovered one of their favorite horses had been killed by a pack of wolves. “He was one of our top horses for many years, but he was getting older and we’d put him out for full retirement,” says Sydney Dowton (Ellis, Idaho). “We took him to a pasture on our upper place and he’d been doing really well. We saw him a few days earlier and he was fat as a seal and doing fine.”

After discovering the carcass, they called Eric Simonson (federal trapper). He came out to the ranch to examine the carcass and confirmed it was a wolf kill. “We don’t know if maybe the fires caused the wolves to move closer to us. We are right over the hill from that big fire that burned a lot of the region around Ketchum and Challis.”

His wife Karen was taking it hard. “She went back up there and took photos, and was pretty upset at what the wolves did to that horse,” says Sydney.<<<Read More>>>


Mexican Wolf Comment and Letter Campaign and Talking Points

HOWL vs Home

Do you want wolves in your back or font yards where your kids or grand kids play???

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has two proposals open for comment. One to delist all wolves EXECPT the Mexican Wolf. The other is to change the release boundaries and other things in the 10J rule which runs the Mexican wolf program now. FWS has proposed everything south of I-40 as suitable habitat and Defenders of Wildlife have proposed Suitable Wolf Habitat and Potential Dispersal Corridors in the Southwest that include ALL of New Mexico, including Northern New Mexico. You must submit comments to BOTH FWS proposals to have your voice heard.

Join us for our Mexican Wolf Comment and Letter Campaign

When: December 16, 2013

Where: Cuba NRCS Office
44 County Road 11 Ste 4a
Cuba, New Mexico
Time: 5:00pm – 8:00pm

Your Voice Needs To Be Heard


Talking Points!

Management and rule planning.

NO private landowner agreements due to surrounding livestock producer and private property impacts.

Do not remove the rule that allows defense of livestock on deeded land. Instead add defense of stock dogs and hunting dogs on federally administered land. Protecting rural livelihoods is not likely to further endanger the species and keeping economic stability on the land is far more important than the miniscule number of wolves that could potentially be killed in the act of harming private property.

Private property (pets, livestock and other privately owned animals)deserve protection from wolves and the owners should never have their rights to protect them restricted or denied over this animal. They are not in danger of extinction as some have claimed.

No permit should ever be required for a property owner to protect livestock regardless of the location of that livestock. Discriminating against allotment owners by disallowing them to defend their livestock from attack, is not ethical and is arbitrary and capricious whether on deeded land or a federally administered grazing allotment where the owner has surface property rights and rights of way. Location does not change the designation of private property.

State lands should not gain the same management status as federally owned land. States must decide that issue not this program.

Replacing the term depredation incident was done by default of a policy change several years ago, it should be defined as one animal not multiple animals in a 24 hour period. The change was arbitrary and capricious then and it is arbitrary and capricious as a rule change as well.

Stop using the term Extinction in the wild, it was coined by wolf advocates and isn’t relevant to this program. Extinction only means the state or situation that results when something (such as a plant or animal species) has died out completely. It isn’t subject to location or whether or not an animal is or isn’t in all corners of the historic habitat. It is spin until or if the captive breeding animals all die, and the wild population is also dead something that is less likely to occur than it was in the years before this program began. This animal is not worse off than it was in 1998 and the term was not being thrown around so loosely about them.

Incorporate the New Mexico Cattle Growers association Petition for rule change document into scoping and alternatives. Simply ignoring it isn’t an option the paper was presented officially during the 5 year review and thus far FWS has ignored it.

Removal of trapping in the BRWRA and expanded areas is not conducive to the survival of the species as a whole, all released wolves are redundant and not essential to the survival of the species, if one is accidentally trapped on occasion it does not threaten the species.

Delisting and Re-listing of the Mexican wolf

Delist the Mexican wolf with the gray wolf. line bred from one female wolf is not a separate and distinct subspecies. , the only designation that applies here whether they are a distinct subspecies or simply a geographically separate gray wolf is experimental non-essential.

Do not change listing to Essential whether or not such population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species is the only criteria that matters. With the captive population and breeding animals in place and with the northern populations, none of these wolves are essential to the continued existence of this species. For 16 years non-essential was the legal definition of this animal.

With the substantial captive breeding gene pool, and the wild population being made up of solely redundant animals, this population of wolves is not in danger of extinction and cannot be designated essential.

This wolf populations is an experimental population simply due to the fact that it is made up of genetically redundant wolves and is geographic separation from the main population in the northern part of the country, for the purposes of the ESA. Whether or not it is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species is vague at best after all every single wolf is duplicated genetically in the captive breeding pool.

Critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act for any experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species.

The Mexican wolf is not a subspecies of wolf, it is a gray wolf and able to breed with the original species. A grizzly and black bear are separate and distinct subspecies, but a gray wolf and Mexican wolf can breed and therefore are not. The Mexican wolf is simply a line bred, wolf with the distinction of sharing mitochondrial DNA between the gene pool. It does not make it a separate distinct sub species. It is simply a geographically separate population of gray wolves.

For more information please contact NMCGA at 505.247.0584


More on Wind Turbines Killing Birds

Only a few days ago I shared a link to an article about Duke Energy pleading guilty to killing protected birds and other species with their wind turbines.

The Wall Street Journal (behind a pay wall) carries an article hinting to the demise of the Wind Industry because now a precedent has been set and money paid by a wind energy company to environmentalists for killing birds. Isn’t this what it’s all about? Putting money in the pockets of environmentalists? Isn’t this why the Obama Administration used our tax dollars to subsidize fraudulent wind energy, knowing full well it was a destruction of the environment, in order to put money into the pockets of crooks that helped get him elected? Like there is something new going on here!

The pile of sticks who worship and promote wind energy say that only a few birds are being killed and that it’s climate change that’s killing more animals. Climate change, in this context, has been proven over and over to be a myth and there exists no substantiated, real science that proves this so-called man-caused climate change is killing any animals at all. Even in places where fake scientists, seeking outcome-based results from fake studies, the “experts” have no answer to any wildlife issues, well, that is any they are willing to discuss.

The short of it is, they, the environmental extortionists, lie about climate change and killing animals, for profit, why should we believe them when they say windmills don’t kill many birds. (Wink, wink. Pad those coffers.)

Duke Energy’s wind turbines killed 14 golden eagles. I think that’s more than just a few. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, there currently exists 18 active investigations into allegations that wind turbines are killing wildlife. Surely, some, if not all, of those 18 investigations will lead to lawsuits…..any big money.

After all, there’s money to be harvested and this corruption has gone on forever it seems. What’s next?



About Editing Your Comments in Disqus

Attention: I have discovered that it appears that some registered “Disqus” members are editing their comments after they have been posted under articles on this website. I cannot control most aspects of how Disqus is designed to work and it is the privilege of all Disqus members to be able to edit their own comments. Comments can never be deleted but they can be “anonymized”: meaning after the comment has been posted, the person making the comment can then choose to make the post “anonymous.” Once this is done, it cannot be changed back.

While it may be a privilege of a Disqus user to edit their own comments and anonymize their comments, that doesn’t mean that I have to tolerate it. For purposes of this website, i.e., there are acceptable ways to edit a comment. Examples may be but not limited to: a misspelled word, punctuation, a missing word, etc.

It is typically considered proper etiquette on this website that should a commenter decide to edit their comment, other than simple things like adding a punctuation mark or correcting a misspelled word, to leave the original post as it first appeared, add the changes and make a note of the date the edit took place and why.

It appears to me that there are some who have chosen to edit the content of their comment in order to deliberately confuse the topic or make a person who responded to a comment look foolish. I can think of no other reason other than complete disrespect for themselves, the person they are attempting to embarrass and me, the owner and administer of this site.

Why are comments left untouched important? To better understand the importance of this request, consider that one of the biggest reasons I allow commenting on this website, is to educate and involve readers who wish to post their thoughts, information, etc. What some readers may not be aware of is that there are thousands of readers who visit this website on a daily basis. Sometimes those readers land on articles, with the comments, that were posted days, weeks, months or maybe years ago. The comments are an integral part of the entire post. When major edits are made to comments, it screws up and confuses the topic and flow of the conversation. This has to be considered by other readers as a negative thing and thus, drives them away to not return again and/or to opt out of reading through the comments. Again, from my perspective this comes across as an attempt to deliberately sabotage this website. I fail to come up with any other excusable reason.

If you are going back, sometimes to comments made a long time ago and editing your comments for sinister purposes (and that judgement is left up to me, the moderator/administer) it is just another form of “trolling” or “flaming” a website and it will not be tolerated by me. Please stop this immediately or when making those kinds of changes, at a minimum, leave the original post as it appeared, add the edited portion and date it with an explanation of why you chose to edit it.

If this sort of thing continues, nothing will be said by me and no warnings issued. You will simply be blacklisted and prohibited to further participate in commenting on this website.

If you have questions about this post, please leave them in the comment section below and I will address them there. That way everyone can read the questions and answers and I will avoid having to repeat myself in additional emails.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I attempt to run this website all by myself and as such have little time to commit to moderating the comment section. I don’t make enough money from this site and cannot afford to pay someone to be a moderator. Please respect my wishes, as is nearly always done and I appreciate that.



Background Checks for Guns Peaks at 2.8 Million a Month

But since that peak number, sales, or at least federal background checks, have dropped off; some of which is attributed to stricter gun control laws in several states. <<<Read More>>>