September 20, 2017

Missouri V. HSUS

Share

Internet Spying Disguised as Animal Welfare

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=32bd1af59684e333790b21abc656ca0b&tab=core&_cview=0

———————
Excerpt:

PART I – STATEMENT OF WORK
Internet Data Monitoring

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care (AC), Riverdale, MD, has a requirement for a contractor to provide internet surveillance/data mining for individuals that are conducting Animal Welfare Act or Horse Protection Act regulated activities domestically within the United States.

A. BACKGROUND
Animal Care is charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The AWA requires that basic standards of care and treatment be provided for regulated animals for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. Individuals who operate facilities in these categories must provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the areas of housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.

The HPA prohibits horses subjected to a practice called soring from participating in shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions. Soring is a cruel and abusive practice used to accentuate a horse’s gait. It may be accomplished by irritating or blistering a horse’s forelegs through the application of chemicals such as mustard oil or the use of mechanical devices. The HPA also prohibits drivers from transporting sored horses to or from any of these events. APHIS works actively with the horse industry to protect against such abuse and ensure that only sound and healthy horses participate in shows.

USDA, APHIS, Animal Care personnel need to monitor, collect and manage information from Internet sites for regulated activities throughout the United States. We require the expertise of an industry that utilizes technological advancements that can search the broad universe of Internet sources for information on individuals that are conducting regulated activities.

This project is to be designed to evaluate vendor’s Internet Search Engine functionalities, user interface, and data to ensure that the data meets the Animal Care program needs. The results of the 6 month initial pilot project will determine the feasibility of extending the contract.

B. OBJECTIVES

The vendor shall create modules that shall monitor regulated activities. The module shall provide identification, categorization and analysis of Web sites to identify persons suspected of conducting regulated activities without the required license or registration or illegal activities involving horse shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions. The jurisdiction of the AWA and HPA are confined to the United States and its territories, so these modules shall only search for these criteria that occur in the United States.
The regulated activities to monitor are grouped into the following seven modules:

1) Sales of animals used as pets (all warm blooded animals)

2) Sales of wild and exotic animals

3) Animals exhibited to the public for compensation

4) Animals used for research, teaching, testing, and experimentation

5) Commercial transportation of animals

6) Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions (such as Tennessee Walking Horses)

7) Animal auctions

During the initial 6 months period of this contract, the vendor shall monitor two of the predetermined modules above, Sales of animal used as pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions and auctions. After evaluation of the services provided, subsequent modules may be added contingent upon the success of the pilot project, not to exceed the modules listed above. For each module, the contractor shall work with Animal Care personnel to identify the search parameters needed to accomplish each of the modules above.

C. CONTRACTOR TASKS AND DELIVERABLES

Project Management: The Contractor shall assign a Project Manager for this initiative to oversee the development of the project, ensure the timely accomplishment of each task and provide the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) with a contractor point of contact for this contract.

A. Tasks

The tasks to be accomplished shall include:

1) During the initial 6 months pilot project period of this contract, the contractor shall focus on individuals or businesses engaged in the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions.

2) The contractor shall use their data mining and search engine capabilities to scan the entire Internet for businesses or individuals suspected of conducting AWA or HPA regulated activities without the required license or registration or illegal activities involving horse shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions within the domestic United States and its territories. THE SCAN SHALL BE VIA INTERNET WEB TECHNOLOGY SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, NOT A HUMAN BEING. The Internet sources include, but are not limited to:

* Global Domain Registrations

* World Wide Web

* Social Networking Web Sites

* Web logs (Blogs)

* IRC/Chat conversations

* Message Boards

* Public email groups and discussion forums

* Usenet Data

* Auctions – eBay.com and Yahoo.com Auctions

3) The Contractor shall collaborate with AC personnel to establish the appropriate search criteria for the identifying individuals or businesses engaged in the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions. The contractor shall promptly notify AC if there are any complications with the established search criteria.

4) The Contractor shall meet with AC officials to discuss search criterion in person, by telephone conference call or webinar. No travel costs for contractors are covered under this contract.

5) The Contractor shall make search data from the Sale of Animals Used as Pets; and Horse shows, sales, exhibitions, and auctions modules accessible online to the government via a Web Portal Display. The portal is made up of the following components:

* Dashboard to monitor activity across multiple solutions and users
* Case management system
* Message center
* Permissions-based user access
* Ad-hoc query access to client-specific data
* Ad-hoc query access to Vendor’s database of registered Domain Names

6) Contractor Intelligence Analysts shall review the pool of suspected data items generated by the Internet search tool to identify relevant data from the Internet. Contractor Intelligence Analysts shall summarize the findings as well as highlight the highest priority data according to agreed-upon criteria. The summary shall be delivered monthly via email and to the case management system of the Web Portal Display.

7) The Web Portal Display system shall be fully configured within fifteen (15) business days from receipt of the required Government’s data. The first data from the module shall be available to the Government within thirty days (30) from system configuration.

8.) The Contractor shall provide training on Web Portal Display system for reviewing of reports or search results to the COTR or alternate and AC personnel. Sessions shall be conducted via webinar.

9) Contractor shall provide a “help desk” option, where assistance can be found if questions arise from the reports or search results.

Share

Nanny State Run Amuck: Bloomberg Bans Food Donations in New York City

Food Might Be Salty or Too High in Calories, City Explains

Washington, D.C. – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration is now banning all food being offered to the city’s homeless shelters. New York City’s bureaucrats have become so singularly focused on what people eat, says the National Center for Public Policy Research, that they’ve lost their common sense.

“So much for serving the homeless: The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term ‘food police’ to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless,” writes Jeff Stier, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division, in an op-ed in Monday’s New York Post.

“In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services has recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans,” writes Stier.

New York City DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond told the National Center’s Stier that the complete ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on “improving nutrition for all New Yorkers.”

As Stier writes, “A new inter-agency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.”

“Diamond insists that the institutional vendors hired by the shelters serve food that meets the rules but also tastes good; it just isn’t too salty, ” writes Stier. “So, according to the commissioner, the homeless really don’t need any donated food.”

Stier’s research reveals that there’s more to the story.

“For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife Lenore have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side orthodox congregation. They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood,” explains Stier. ” The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city,” he writes in the op-ed.

Mr. Richter’s experience suggests Commissioner Diamond and the Bloomberg administration are out of touch.

“[Glenn Richter] says the beneficiaries — many of them senior citizens recovering from drug and alcohol abuse — have always been appreciative of the treats he and other OZ members bring. It’s not just that the donations offer an enjoyable addition to the ‘official’ low-salt fare; knowing that the food comes from volunteers and from community members warms their hearts, not just their stomachs,” writes Stier.

“So you can imagine Richter’s consternation last month when employees at a local shelter turned away food he brought from a bar-mitzvah,” says Stier in the piece.

Richter, Stier writes, “is a former city Housing Authority employee, while his wife spent 35 years as a South Bronx public school teacher, so they’re no strangers to bureaucracy and poverty. But an exasperated Richter says, ‘this level of micromanagement is stunning.'”

Stier is an expert on how the nanny state is undermining the credibility of the public health community. Among his many articles: “The Happy Meal Ban Flops” for National Review Online, “Obama Healthcare: Government, Heal Thyself,” for the Los Angeles Times and “Regulating Junk Food Advertising” for Townhall.com.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

By Executive Order, U.S. President Seizes Full Control of All Assets Private and Governmental

*Scroll for an Update*

While you and I were asleep at the wheel, President Barack Obama, who, since becoming president has chosen repeatedly to bypass Congress and govern by executive order, signed another executive order that effectively gives him, or any other president, the authority to seize and control virtually every aspect of existence away from the citizens of the United States.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order, as some can image, is disguised as an act to enhance this countries capabilities to protect itself through “National Defense”. It is also being shrouded in claims of “emergencies”, when in fact, no “emergency” is actually required for the president to be able to seize control over people and their assets for the purpose of “National Defense”.

Before I get into the more shocking contents of the Executive Order(EO), let me include the definition of “National Defense” as is outlined in this act:

(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

National Defense, as the president chooses to define it, is very broad, poorly defined; not as most people might consider the classic definition of national defense.

What is it that this EO gives the president power over?

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

If, while looking through this list, you wonder if it might include some aspect you’re not sure of, trust me it does. I see virtually no stones unturned here. This is a blatant appropriation of the American people and their property.

But let’s not kid ourselves, this power grab includes every imaginable resource available in this country. In addition, this EO grants authority for the confiscation of your property and equipment. If you own a factory, the government has the power to take it over and modify it in any fashion they so chose; all for the purpose of “National Security”. But it doesn’t end there.

Don’t miss the wording of the paragraph that leads into this list of things the government now controls:

(a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense(emboldening is mine)

Note that this is not about executing national defense or what is necessary in time of war or national emergency. This tells us that the president can do this “to promote national defense”, as he deems appropriate. We find more references contained in this EO that tells us this has nothing to do with emergencies and/or disasters.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.(emboldening mine)

All that becomes necessary here is for one or more of the assigned “agencies” to propose a “need” to “promote” national defense and the government can seize assets and equipment and the people to run them.

This EO attempts to hide behind the “National Defense Executive Reserve” as a means of recruiting labor to carry out the mission to “promote National Defense”, in addition to stating each agency has authority to “employ” laborers, it does further go on to state that implementation of the draft or some other form of enslaving labor as deemed needed.

(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;(emboldening mine)

This is what most would believe to be implementation of the “draft”. But, is it? The Selective Service and Secretary of Defense will work on “development of policies”; i.e. policies in place are subject to change under this executive order.

The Secretary of Labor, now has authority to “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;” Not that our government isn’t already doing this but with a more powerful reach into our privacy, we should be now looking for more probing and demanding requirements by the government in our workplaces, all to “promote national defense”. Look for this “data” to be personal in nature and nothing to do with “national defense”.

In the past, Americans have debated items like the Patriot Act, citing whether or not it is constitutional to cede our God-given rights under the guise of national security. Of course the Patriot Act was conveniently implemented and subsequently renewed after the events of 9/11. People were led to believe we were in a crisis threat from “terrorists” and such privacy intrusion and destruction of rights were necessary and so we gave those rights away.

This Executive Order goes far, far beyond anything found in the Patriot Act. To bury one’s head in the sand and claim this is all preventive maintenance has no means of sustaining scrutiny. This EO doesn’t even leave open debate as to whether any or all of it is necessary for the protection of this country. While it mentions emergencies, it just as casually connects all actions in this order in the context of non emergencies. All that is necessary is for the president to declare an undefined, unspecified need.

But let’s not omit one extremely important aspect of the entire thing. I suppose some would find reason to argue whether or not my interpretation of the EO applies only to emergencies rather than non emergencies but what is not specifically defined in this order is what must be in place in order to implement this National Defense Resources Preparedness. Each department or agencies named by the president has the authority to declare a need. This declaration is supposed to work its way through channels ultimately to the president’s desk.

Again, we can argue as to whether or not any administration should have carte blanche authority to implement such an order but shouldn’t implementation require a certain set criteria that first must be met? Better yet, how can America even have in existence such an order that ultimately destroys what is left of the Constitution?

This Executive Order declares war upon the citizens of the United States and enacts slavery. There is something seriously wrong with the presidential privilege of executive order drafting, when something of this magnitude is foisted onto a sleeping citizenry.

And what kind of human being would sign it? Surely not an American.

*Update* March 19, 2012, 12:10 p.m.

As you will find if you take the time to look around at other news articles and blogs across the Internet, you’ll find the real problem as to why America finds itself in a situation in which with little abuse and misguided agendas, such executive orders can be implemented.

I turn to an article in the World Net Daily, in which it states:

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

In our own ignorance, much due to the brainwashing of our nation, we have been led like sheep to believe that many wrongs make a right. This is why we no longer abide by the Constitution. Because a bill enacted in 1950 and subsequent executive orders by Presidents Eisenhower, Clinton and Bush, were enacted and signed, is not a case to support that any of the acts were constitutional.

The WND article claims that there is no difference in the content of Obama’s executive order compared to Clinton’s and that it is only to bring it up to date with governmental organization. Both of these claims fly in the face of honesty; one that there should never have been any ruling in this nation that gives power to the president to become a tyrant dictator while enslaving the people, and second, that the only changes in the order were “boilerplate” housekeeping.

Tom Remington

Share

Ain’t We Just Wicked Smart With Our Technology?

Share

Why Government Will Never Assure Your Access To Resources for Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

We must somehow learn to ween ourselves from the hind teat of government. Through the indoctrination and brainwashing forcefully imposed on us from birth, we grow up always looking to government for answers to our problems. When is the last time any government agency, law or program rightfully solved anyone’s problems?

Very few states in this Union have any kind of constitutional or statute law that protects the citizens and their right to make use of the natural resources for hunting, trapping and fishing. To my knowledge, the following states have constitutional amendments that supposedly guarantee the citizens of these states the unobstructed right to hunt: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Nearly all of these amendments were voted on and approved by the people.

There has been a push of late for states to enshrine their rights to hunting, trapping and fishing but does such a move actually accomplish what people are led to believe it will, i.e. an actual constitutional protection, a guarantee that this right shall never be infringed?

Hunters in states like Idaho are trying to bet their guarantee on a state code. One of the difficulties not being realized by these outdoor sportsmen is that they are not looking at the entire code. It’s not necessarily that they are cherry picking or taking the code out of context, it is that I believe they are victims of exactly what the authors and signers of the code intended. In other words the code was written intentionally to confuse, while at the same time sounding as though it was accomplishing what some of the voters asked for. This is a common tactic of all untrustworthy politicians and another reason none of them can be trusted. This should also bolster the resolve that we the people should not rely on government to protect us from anything.

In Idaho, this code debate began with the announcement by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) that a “Wildlife Summit” was being planned for August of 2012.

Much of the initial outrage occurred when the sportsmen discovered that many anti-hunting, environmental, and non governmental agencies were invited to the Summit. While I certainly agree that anti-hunting and all environmental groups should have no say in fish and game management because of their agendas, whether as individuals or groups, these people do have a right to attend such a meeting.

There are other issues that surround the intent of the Summit. One of them being that some members of the IDFG Commission seem to be indicating that the goal of the Summit is to rewrite the mission of IDFG.

In an email I received from one Idaho citizen who attended a recent IDFG meeting, I was told that one member of the Commission said that these anti-hunting, non governmental organizations (NGO), have a good representation of Idaho sportsmen. The person told the commissioner that he was trying to change Idaho Code 36-103.

This may actually be true, at least from the perspective of someone working very diligently to preserve the hunting heritage of their state but the bottom line is the codes that are written and what they actually say and just as importantly how they would be interpreted in a court of law, determines everything.

In many of the discussions I have read about this issue, the sportsmen seem intent on tossing out the first half of Idaho Code 36-103 , which reads:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.

The thrust of the focus by hunters appears to be directed at: “provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

This is done with disregard for the rest of the WORDS written into the code by lawyers. Before we take a bit of a closer look at this law, I’ll post here the entire statute:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

Lawyers and a court of law can rip this Code to shreds and resulting rulings will leave us all wondering how that was done. While it’s easy as hunters to focus on those highlighted words above, even though the authors may have intended that to be your focus, all the other words have meaning too. To a lawyer and a judge, multiple meanings.

In brief, Part A above does not guarantee that the IDFG or the state of Idaho must grow game populations so that everyone in Idaho who wants to hunt, trap and fish can do so and for all the species in which seasons are provided. As a matter of fact, the Code says that the only time taking of game will be permitted is when there is enough wildlife to go around. However, that “taking” can be limited by any means the IDFG sees fit.

Part B then goes on to give the fish and game commission the authority to administer this code. As much as all of us would love to believe the fish and game commission doesn’t have the right to “change Idaho Code 36-103”, there’s nothing really in that code that guarantees Idaho citizens a right to hunt, trap and fish. What some members of the commission might be interested in doing by inviting anti-hunting groups to the summit, is to build support to change the mission statement of IDFG.

One would think that with the intent of Idaho Code 36-103, i.e to guarantee Idaho citizens the right to hunt, trap and fish, a step up to a constitutional amendment would be an easy task. That didn’t happen though did it? Perhaps now you are getting a better understanding as to why. Who’s your friend? Who’s on your side?

My intent here was not to dissect Idaho Code but to make a broader statement and support with facts on the ground. The truth is not even a constitutional amendment guarantees outdoor sportsmen any right to hunt, fish or trap. It may be perhaps the best chance at achieving such but is far from a blank check guarantee. And for those states with some kind of statute, like Idaho, no code or statute is protected from change, especially those with an agenda.

Most amendments to constitutions are non specific. In states that have such constitutional changes, the amendment may read that the citizens of that state have a right to hunt, trap and fish and that it may go so far as to require the fish and game departments to “perpetuate” wild game for hunting opportunities for the citizens. This is so non specific it leaves the door wide open to interpretation. Forget the intent of the amendment. Intent means nothing when dealing with law makers with an agenda.

Consider the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently in two Supreme Court rulings it was determined that Washington, D.C. (Heller vs. District of Columbia), and Chicago (NRA vs. City of Chicago) could not prohibit citizens from owning a handgun. While the Second Amendment is suppose to guarantee American citizens a right to keep and bear arms, we see that even with a Supreme Court ruling, the citizens of Washington, D.C. and Chicago do not have a right to keep and bear arms as they wish.

The reality of it is, we deal with many things most of us are completely unaware of. In our reliance on government to protect us, we refuse to believe that our constitutions and laws will not protect us and do what we have been told they will do. Even Supreme Court rulings are not enough to force cities to comply. They would rather take their chances in more courts with more lawsuits because that’s where their friends are. Surely if the rulings of the Supreme Court mean nothing to the governments of local cities, why should we rest that our state governments care one way or the other about our rights to hunt, trap and fish?

And while you are sleeping, changes to our laws are taking place that we know nothing about. For instance, in Maine, I was researching to find out what the state statutes were regarding trapping. You can find the details here, but what I discovered was that during a federally mandated “recodification” process, your laws can and are being changed and you may not know it.

We are told by our government that recodification of all states’ laws will be done every ten years. The intent of this action is supposed to be to clear up redundancies and other issues that make deciphering and interpreting the laws clearer and easier. What I discovered was someone took this opportunity to rewrite the laws the way they wanted them done. BTW, a new round of recodification is supposed to take place in 2013. Pay attention!

With a legislature either deaf and dumb to the responsibilities of the job or in on the illegal action, it is a snap to pass these recodified laws. After all, it’s just a housekeeping measure, right?

We must stop depending on government for anything. They cannot be trusted nor will they protect you and I from anything. To stop this would be monumental because it would require a complete makeover that begins in our schools and homes. At the ballot box we can work harder at getting the right people elected but it doesn’t end there. We need watch dog groups that will follow everything each law maker does and make sure the public knows and understands. This of course will never happen because there aren’t enough people who care.

Tom Remington

Share

Presidential Candidates Talk Sportsmen’s Issues with USSA

(Columbus) –Like so many other states during the last 90 days, Ohio is now taking its turn as the center of the political storm. The Republican candidates for the White House are crisscrossing the Buckeye state to make their case to voters prior to tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” primary.

This full court press, in the backyard of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s national headquarters, provided staff leadership a chance to visit and have dialogue with the campaigns and candidates.

Today, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum agreed to sit down to talk about the most important issues facing sportsmen with USSA staff. Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO; Rob Sexton, Senior Vice President; Doug Jeanneret, Vice President of Marketing; and Evan Heusinkveld, Director of State Services, spent 30 minutes with the presidential hopeful at an American Legion hall.

“I have spent my career fighting to preserve the 2nd Amendment and the traditions of the sportsman, and I will continue working to ensure these rights are never infringed upon,” said Sen. Santorum. “I have to admit though, that one of the best things about being on this campaign was the Iowa pheasant hunts – and the high point for me was watching my oldest son take his first pheasant.”

Prior to the meeting, the Santorum campaign provided information on his views on hunting and second amendment rights. Click here to read the Santorum document in its entirety. USSA will publish Sen. Santorum’s responses to questions asked by USSA leadership tomorrow on the organization’s website www.ussportsmen.org.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign also provided information explaining his views on hunting and the second amendment. Click here to read the Romney document in its entirety.

Governor Romney recently addressed his feelings regarding our outdoor heritage during a campaign stop in Ohio on Feb. 29, 2012.

“My own view is, lets protect the second amendment, lets protect the right of Americans to bear arms, whether for hunting, for sportsmen, for personal protection, for whatever legal purpose someone might have,” said Romney.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance was pleased to have a discourse with both candidates.

“Given that one of these two men could very likely lead our country, it is vital for sportsmen to have every chance to learn more about where they stand on hunting, conservation and gun rights,” said Bud Pidgeon. “We are very pleased to have had the opportunity to visit, and will continue to provide information on the candidates whenever possible.”

Share

NRA’s “Trigger the Vote” Campaign

Share

Ted Nugent Endorses Mitt Romney

*Editor’s Note* The posting of this information is not an indication that I or anyone associated with the web site endorses the candidate Mitt Romney. This is being made available for the readers as information.

After much soul searching and due diligent research, I endorse Governor Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee for president because I believe he is the best man to chart a course for renewed America prosperity.

I respect, admire and applaud all four candidates, but endorse Mitt.

Good government always begins with good people. Governor Romney is a good man, a self-made man, an independent man, a smart man. My kind of guy, a real all-American MotorCity Madman sans ponytail.

We live in brutal economic times. Tough times require tough people willing to make even tougher decisions. I only support tough, creative, smart and bold people, and Governor Romney is just the man America needs right now for these turbulent times and the even tougher times in front of us.

Too many Americans are unemployed and under-employed. Putting America back to work and restoring America’s economy is job #1. Governor Romney has the hands-on private sector experience that is critical to understanding how to ignite our economy and put Americans back to work. President Obama has no private sector experience and we have a stagnant, sinking economy to prove it.

Governor Romney knows that one of the key economic anchors drowning our economy is that we have too much government that consumes too much of our GDP. He knows the path to prosperity is not lined with more government, more bureaucracy, more borrowing and spending, more mountains of unsustainable debt, and more fiscal insanity such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who amazingly are still making bad loans.

He understands the way forward is not more of the same disastrous policies and tremendously expensive programs that have pushed America to the brink of economic collapse. Under a Romney presidency, America will chart a much different course that begins with much less spending, lower taxes, and more accountability.

Governor Romney understands how the voluminous stacks of burdensome federal government regulations are suffocating the free market. Bureaucratic, anti-job regulations will become immediately extinct when Governor Romney becomes President Romney. The days of irresponsible, costly, unaccountable government will soon be a thing of the past.

Restoring basic fiscal sanity in a system that is addicted to irresponsible spending begins with banning earmarks across the board. President Romney will work to get the president line-item veto power and work to get a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Businesses will once again feel secure in investing and expanding their operations with a pro-business Romney Administration. If you want a job and a brighter future, Governor Romney is clearly the best choice to occupy the White House.

While becoming energy independent is difficult and will take time, President Romney will begin this journey by implementing a pragmatic energy policy that includes nuclear power, a Keystone pipeline, more off-shore drilling, and other real energy innovation and research and development.

As a tried and true conservationist, I know a President Romney will place the interests of the hunting and fishing community first and foremost over the current animal right’s terrorists infesting our government agencies. There will be zero pandering or tolerance of radical, leftist, clown-brigade environmentalists in a Romney White House.

Governor Romney is strong on national defense. Though a peaceful man, he knows that lasting peace is ultimately achieved through a position of strength. There will be no time tables to withdraw our warriors from the battlefield, only timetables for victory which will be established by our warriors.

There will be no apologizing for America to the international community by a President Romney, only praise for our freedom, our warriors, our culture, and our values. America will once again be respected on the international stage with President Romney at the helm.

During my heart to heart talk with the good Governor, I am convinced he better understands the inescapable truism of a God given individual right to keep and bear arms. No re-interpretation necessary.

There are stark and clear differences between Governor Romney and President Obama. This is good. Governor Romney believes the engine of America is the free market while President Obama believes in punishing the producers of the free market and growing an even larger federal government and legions of soulless dependents.

Governor Romney is clearly the best man for the job at hand. To restate President Reagan’s campaign theme of 1984, it will once again be morning in America with Mitt Romney in the White House.

Let’s rock, America.

Share

The Epitome of Government Irony

I just received this statement from a reader of this blog:

“Isn’t It Ironic?

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. And, they spend thousands of our tax dollars encouraging others to apply.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to “please do not feed the animals” because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.”

Share