December 16, 2018

How Seriously Does McCain Take the Killing of Human Life?

At a 3-hour hearing in which lying, cheating, thieving scumbag politicians were supposed to be listening to the liars lying about evidence to justify the United States attacking and killing Syrian people in order to stop the attacking and killing of Syrian people, John McCain is caught on camera sitting in the hearing playing video poker. And we thought these crooked, narcissistic, hair ball, vermin were careless and callous in not bothering to read Obamacare or probably any other law they voted on. And we are supposed to support our government…..because WHY?

I read earlier this morning a commentary that included the thought that computers were designed in order to make man more productive. And then, somebody invented the Internet.

I might suggest treating the brain dead, useless, pols like the children they are and taking away their electronic toys while at work but these crooked bastards would make a law that would prohibit the voters from using electronic games while exempting themselves.

Why can’t people see through this nonsense.

In a side note and yet related, Greg Gutfeld, a member of Fox News’ “The Five”, who never has anything intelligent to say, yesterday made the only rational comment I’ve ever heard him speak. In describing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with General Dempsey, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, Gutfeld said it was like watching a very boring and orchestrated event. Too bad he didn’t really understand what he was saying or have the ambition to discover why it was a boring and ORCHESTRATED event.

mccainplayingpoker

Share

Uh,oh! Did John Kerry’s Claim of “Signatures” of Sarin Gas Mean Victims Brushed Their Teeth?

Natural News files a report stating that they believe the testing that was used on the alleged victims of Bashar Assad’s sarin gas attack on women and children would also show “signatures” of sarin gas if people drank fluoridated water and/or brushed their teeth. In addition, children’s foods are full of the same “chemical weapons” found in sarin gas.

Is this all a hoax?

Share

Obama Video Contest to Promote Obamacare Results in Video Not Expected

President Obama offered a video production contest aimed at young Americans in an effort to convince them Obamacare is cool. I don’t think the president expected the following entry.

Share

The Wolf Blitzkrieg Continues

A guest post by Jim Beers

*Editor’s Note* – The following article is a direct response to information provided in a news article from KRWG.org, “Settlements Reached to Protect Mexican Gray Wolves.” Out of professional courtesy, I will not post the article here. I can only provide a link to the original article. To better understand Jim Beers’ response, I suggest you read the article first as his response is directed at specific comments made in the “Settlement” article.

TRANSLATION –

1.) Arizona and New Mexico are but the most recent communities to stand alone before federal bureaucrats and radicals intent on forcing wolves into ever-widening rural areas for their nefarious purposes.

2.) Just as the federal government has been using the Mexican government to destroy the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution (Fast and Furious gun smuggling, federal pols bemoaning how Mexico’s incredible barbarity and lawlessness is due to “American guns”, using this as a pretext for secretly negotiating a UN TREATY to confiscate American guns, and even giving the President of Mexico a speech platform before our Congress to whine for and demand gun control in the US!): so too is the Mexican government (with all the killings, corruption and poverty rampant throughout the country) spending money and time “releasing endangered Mexican gray wolves a few dozen miles south of the border”? If that doesn’t stink of AMERICAN bureaucrats and radicals working with foreign powers to destroy American freedoms and rights as spelled out in our Constitution, I don’t know what does. Their role model must be the late Mr., now MS Chelsea, Manning and they deserve no less than he/she.

3.) Who will stand with Arizona and New Mexico? Colorado, one of the “Southern Rockies’ States” so coveted by federal wolf bureaucrats and radicals has gone off the deep end and sees wolves like they do a gun-free state where trees die only from fire, cattle are soon to be banned, and rural folks will only get what is due them. Utah, another Southern Rockies State was AWOL in the Montana/Idaho wolf war as an ally while trying to emulate Wyoming’s unique political backbone and save their own state’s hide. The only trouble was Utah has a record of fighting admirably for its own interests (their current efforts to gain ownership of federal lands in Utah is such an effort) and added to all the retirees from elsewhere flooding S Utah, like Nevada, politics are taking a Progressive turn as Progressives increasingly occupy the S areas to be “wolved” at first while they are increasingly gaining a political foothold in the Northern urban areas. Texas, a “borderland”, like Utah usually stands alone, and while they project a Conservative State’s Rights persona, the voters of spots like Austin, Houston and Dallas are no place to look for allies as Mexico releases wolves S of Big Bend where wolf food and local tolerance for wolves is similar to Muslim Brotherhood interest in “dialoguing” with Coptic Christians. The wolves will head N into Texas despite the public back-down recently by federal “wolvers” when Texans (especially the goat and sheep men) raised Hades. When the wolves cross the Rio Grande and are “discovered” on some goat carcass or some pile of sheep recently chased and asphyxiated; the feds and “state guys” will HAVE to protect them. Then while they reproduce and begin covering the state like fire ants the Brie and Chardonnay will flow in the radical’s offices on K Street and the ritzy parties on the N Shore of Chicago and the coffee shops in Seattle and Portland will abound with cheery and wide-awake customers. California stand with any other state on anything other than “more” government? Not a chance.

4.) The “Grand Canyon” is like Yellowstone: a large federal enclave where the federal Park Service (and the public and every federal politician) will, metaphorically, go to the ramparts to prevent ANY wolf management or control. Once wolves infest the Grand Canyon Park, the bureaucrats and radicals are confident that no matter what happens around the Park, they can maintain wolves in the Park much like they maintained buffalo for decades in Yellowstone Park despite brucellosis, broken fences and other harms outside the Park and a running conflict with neighboring states.

5.) Now for the most transparent “Translation” of all. The sentence “Research suggests such conflicts are better dealt with through changes in animal husbandry that reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come into contact.” should be readily understood to anyone following this wolf issue in the most casual manner.

– “Research” is code for propaganda generated by radical wolf professionals, self-serving bureaucrats and tenured professors seeking bonuses and more graduate students. It’s worth, since it is bought and paid for and generated by persons interested ONLY in expanding wolf presence and federal power over rural America in the broadest sense and NOT in either Constitutional government or human society. Beyond stacking it with a Sears catalog and corn cobs in the little “house” out back, it is worthless.

– “Suggests” is a meaningless word in the context of government power plus no one will ever be held responsible for “suggesting” something. It is a perfect “weasel” word.

– “Conflicts” is a soft word (like wolf “bite” and shark “encounter”, etc.) to describe the effort to remove or silence ranchers, grazers, rural businesses, Local governments, rural parents and other rural residents that will be harmed – even after those doing Gaia’s work with wolves have done all they can to “resolve” the “conflicts.

– “Better Dealt with”: better than what? Better than productive and profitable animal husbandry (i.e. raising cattle, sheep, goats, alpacas, chickens, rabbits, etc., etc.)? Better than the sort of animal husbandry (small flocks and rare small herds and boxed up near homes) that is merely subsistence and not productive and profitable as in Asia and other spots where they MUST (of necessity) LIVE WITH WOLVES? Better than killing destructive wolves as opposed denying their harm and telling ranchers and others like hunters to “like it or lump it”?

– “Changes in animal husbandry” is, as they say in business meetings, the bottom line. “Changes” means steadily eliminating as in buying out and closing grazing allotments; as in promising “compensation” and then spending a few years questioning “what” killed the animals (we all know how rural folks lie and secretly believe old superstitions) until the federal and then state money runs out since the rancher/grazer had time to “adjust” but failed to do so; as in shrugging when 176 sheep are killed in one flock in one night or when calf losses make owners quit ranching and finding no buyer stupid enough to buy a place with high losses commits suicide leaving the property a “bargain” for federal realtors and their partners over at The Nature Conservancy.

– Finally, “Reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come in contact” is an attempt at humor by humorless radicals and bureaucrats. The conflict between wolves and livestock will only go away when there is either NO WOLVES or NO LIVESTOCK. Which one do you think these radicals and bureaucrats are for?

Which one are you for?

Jim Beers
28 August 2013

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Does Future of Wolves Hinge On Public Perceptions?

It is my opinion, and one that can be easily propped up with existing evidence and results, that the reintroduction or introduction of wolves, depending on your perspective, was nothing more than a typical government bureaucratic, overreach and abuse of power. But that’s commonplace, is it not?

It matters not to which side, if there really are sides, you may come down on in the “Wolf Wars”, it is all too often an emotional, irrational debate among people (and in some cases the term “people” here is used freely). Why is it emotional? If I were to define the two sides in basic terms, on one side we have those who love wolves, believe wolves have rights, believe wolves are necessary for the ecosystem, that wolves should be left alone and that man should be destroyed for interfering with wolves, among other bits of nonsense. On the other side the call is there for wolves to be controlled, that all wolves should be killed, that people need to be able to protect themselves, family and property, etc. Regardless of the definitions of each side, the reality is that it becomes an emotional issue because people are involved and in some cases that involvement is very personal. I know of nobody who will argue that this issue of wolves and wolf reintroduction is not an emotional mess.

Why then, was this aspect of wolf reintroduction not even considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves?

Go look at the EIS. Or better yet, go read it if you would like to gain an understanding about what a useless government document is and how hours and millions of dollars later the entire aspect of wolf reintroduction is a flaming disaster, as far as public perceptions go. The design of the EIS and the reality of what has transpired since, is a clear indication that somebody intended to reintroduce wolves regardless of any concerns or what might happen in the future.

On page viii of the EIS, in part it states:

Fifteen issues and impacts were not evaluated further in the FEIS because they were not
significant
to the decision being made
* Wolves not native to Yellowstone
National Park
* Wolf rights
* Federal “subsidies”
* Human safety and health
* Other predators and scavengers
* Endangered species
* Plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and mammals
* Diseases and parasites
* Private property rights
* Wolf recovery in other areas
* Existing wolves in central Idaho
and Yellowstone
* Existing wolves in northwestern
Montana
* Wolf subspecies
* Wolf and dog and coyote
hybridization
* Need for research (I took the liberty to embolden those “not significant” issues that I know directly impact the people.)

Isn’t this a clear example of how the government, i.e. the environmentalists because they run the government, doesn’t give two rat’s behinds about what the hell happens to the people or their property rights. They are going to do just as they please regardless of how you or I feel. How can many of those 15 items not be considered as significant. One would have to be either brain dead or a crook to think otherwise.

Two of the more prolific wolf “experts” are L. David Mech and Ed Bangs. Mech has studied wolves since before Columbus and Bangs was the wolf reintroduction coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Both men readily acknowledge that public perception played an integral role in wolf introduction and recovery and will play a significant role in the future of the gray wolf and yet both express that their interests are with the wolf far and above any concerns about the people. Mech even indicates that lying about everything wolf, justifies the end when it comes to selling wolves.

The above labels have been very useful in many circumstance and have contributed significantly to wolf recovery. They may still be useful in the future, but we should be aware that they are shortcuts to “sell a product” rather than good scientific grounds on which to build conservation.

The labels Mech is referring to above are those given to wolves in order to better give the public a positive perception of wolves, while deliberately misleading. Lying to the public about a vicious and disease-ridden predator that few have much use for: “flagship species”, “umbrella species”, “indicator species”, “keystone species”, for the sole purpose of “sell a product”, i.e. wolves, to the public. How crooked can anyone get?

Mech has also said that the only thing allowing hunting of wolves provides is a greater tolerance for the animal. He states that hunting wolves will have no direct affect but indirectly it changes public perceptions.

Ed Bangs, wolf coordinator for the USFWS, shows little concern for the people either. Isn’t it just about his wolf?

Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with wolves,” says Ed Bangs, Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. “I think the folks who didn’t like them still don’t like them, and the folks who did like them still do. Wolves are mainly a symbolic issue that relates to core human values.

Or perhaps Bangs shows his love of the wolf and disdain for the human species more precisely when in a comment he made to a person who had just lost their dog to a wolf killing. His comment was, “What’s the big deal? It’s only a damn dog.” Many feel the same way about his damned dogs too.

When nearly every aspect of wolf reintroduction and the continued promotion of wolves directly involves many, if not all, humans, then why did the USFWS opt to not even include public safety and property rights in the Final Environmental Impact Statement?

Historically wolves were nearly extirpated from the lower 48 states because people were intolerant of the nasty dog. Rightly so, the future of gray wolves in this country is going to depend upon how much patience the people are going to have when it comes to public safety, private property, disease and effects on other wildlife, including game animals.

For those in positions of authority, then, to knowingly piss off the citizens and/or trample on their rights when it comes to dealing with the wild dogs, leaves one to conclude that one of two things exist….or perhaps both at the same time.

First, is that the citizenry is dealing with a government agency and as a government agency they believe they have the power to do just as they damned well please and to hell with the serf taxpayers. And secondly, those individuals and organizations are too stupid to know or care. They are driven by personal agendas and feel threatened or eagerly and willingly kowtow to the environmentalists who are always demanding and taking and never giving.

In a recent display of either government abuse or ignorance, the Washington State fish and game people set out traps in an area near Twisp, Washington. The traps were located on Forestry Service lands adjacent to private property. The purpose of the traps was to capture wolves, radio collar them and release them for study. Two pet dogs ended up in the traps.

Out of shear ignorance and stupidity, wildlife officials set these traps within short distances of the residents without notifying anyone living nearby. Officials did place signs along the road(s) leading into the area.

Residents became incensed that wildlife officials would set out traps next to private residents and not personally contact them about their plans and intentions.

If the future of the survival of gray wolves in this country is hinging on public perceptions, what good is becoming of this kind of treatment by government officials of citizens? Is it ignorance? Is it just plain stupidity? Perhaps it’s terrible leadership that non thinking employees can’t make good decisions? Or maybe it’s the usual governmental arrogance that nobody can or will touch them and ruffle their bimonthly paychecks or disrupt their retirement pensions. This is government out of control.

This sort of behavior is not relegated to only the state of Washington. This kind of attitude exists nationwide, I dare say within every fish and game department in this country.

Read what Ed Bangs says in his explanation as to why wolves were finally reintroduced into the Northern Rockies:

I think the only reason wolf reintroduction finally happened was that people with different values moved to Montana and diluted the strong agricultural influence. Plus, the economy changed from straight agriculture and natural resource consumption to areas such as tourism. …I think in time the debate will get less shrill because living with ‘real’ wolves does moderate the strong and highly polarized, all-bad or all-good opinions.

What a crock and a belly full of arrogance! This is absolute BS design to “sell a product”, i.e wolves, to the American public. The reason wolf reintroduction happened was because Bangs and Neimeyer just took it upon themselves to do it. They used their governmental power and force field to say to hell with the people. They wanted wolves and so they went and got them.

It was my perception from reading Carter Neimeyer’s book, “Wolfer”, that one day Neimeyer just up and decided he was going to Canada to trap and import wolves and Ed Bangs could join him if he wanted. Perhaps this is one reason no permits to import wolves was ever obtained.

The “strong and highly polarized” opinions or perceptions of people will not change, so long as everything is said and done to ensure the people aren’t cared for and the wolves are. With actions like those in Washington State and elsewhere, who can have a good opinion of government wildlife biologists and employees when consideration for the people, ironically who pay their wages, is far at the bottom of the totem pole.

Over the coming years, expect little to improve and mostly get worse.

Share

Perverts for Gun Control

pervertpoliticians

Share

Does Speaking Like an Idiot Make You an Idiot?

If so, perhaps this guy would make a bag of rocks look pretty brilliant.

Share

Monica Lewinsky’s X-Boyfriend’s Wife for President

xboyfriend

Share

Saving Hillary’s Bacon

savinghillary

Share

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: The Lynching

Share