July 24, 2017

Maine Rep. Poliquin’s Letter to Sec. Zinke Concerning Katahdin Woods and Waters

Maine Congressional representative Bruce Poliquin, upon request from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, has written a letter to express his thoughts and concerns going forward in an investigation into the designation as a National Monument continues.

Although repeated polls showed the majority of Mainers, specifically those in the immediate region of the Roxanne Quimby lands, opposed the National Monument (and Park) designation, I’m sure Quimby’s position on the Board of the National Park Service played a significant role in President Obama’s decision to make the appointment of a National Monument. It was first attempted by Quimby to convince the Federal Government to open a National Park. The opposition to such a move was quite significant and so Quimby sought then president Barack Obama to bypass the usual processes and so Obama, with the stroke of a pen, designated the newly formed Katahdin Woods and Waters.

President Trump has since, via Executive Power, ordered an investigation into many land designations, including Katahdin Woods and Waters, to see if anything can be done to remove the designation and if not what might be done to ensure what will be in the best interest of the Maine people.

Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, inquired of Rep. Bruck Poliquin, for information about the land and the process of its designation. Poliquin’s letter back to Zinke (included below) presents much of the same arguments used against the designation leading up to Obama’s executive action. However, different from previous thoughts on the issue, Poliquin is asking Sec. Zinke, that should Maine remain stuck with the National Monument, to somehow let Maine be in charge and control over the monument and not necessarily the Federal Government. I’m not sure how that would work, but it is an interesting thought – one I’m doubtful of and probably could not support without knowing more specifics.

Rep Poliquin Letter to Sec Zinke - Katahdin Woods and Waters (1)
Share

Maine Gov. LePage Pens Letter to Trump: Tear Down That Monument

In a move that might become a matter of too little too late, Maine Governor Paul LePage sent a letter to President Trump asking him to reverse Barack Obama’s declaration of a National Monument in lands east of Baxter State Park.

An article found in the Bangor Daily News indicates that there is some concern over investments in businesses, etc. that might be in jeopardy if the monument designation is overturned. It’s a bit one-sided to think this should be of concern when those pushing for the park didn’t seem to have much concern over investments others had made before Roxanne Quimby bought up the land and closed it down. Selfish and greedy when one considers that everyone else who has investments don’t matter, but those taking risks in this nationalistic endeavor, which is what business is all about, can’t have their risk on investment interfered with in any way.

I’ll go back to the same point I made a long time ago, that if building a park on Quimby’s land was such a great idea, and if now her money and donations (she claims the project is now worth $100,000,000.00) from others was so easy to get – money said to be able to sustain the park – then why didn’t Ms. Quimby build her own park? It’s her land. Let her do with it as she so sees fit. Instead she has dumped it into the laps of a corrupt and incompetent federal government that notoriously cannot take care of the lands they now hold. In addition, Maine loses the tax dollars this land would generate in private hands. Taxes will never decrease, therefore Maine citizens will have to make up the shortfall.

Although there may be “thousands” who have supported this monument, according to the BDN article, but there are tens of thousands more who don’t. This is classic totalitarian democracy in action. That’s also most commonly referred to as: “Money talks and shit walks.”

Governor LePage's Letter to President Trump RE National Monument Designation 2.14.17
Share

Put on Your Pussy Hats You Corrupt Fake Politicians

Cry me a river – or more fitting today would be Crimea River…or something. Over the weekend, Senate Minority criminal Charlene Schumer pored on the tears claiming Trumpet was mean spirited and un-American. Waaaaaaah!

Before that we had Baroness Obama, working as hard as he could to drum up some tears, while at the same time pretending he was wiping away his tears with his middle finger. And on and on it goes.

All of these criminal pond scum are actors. Don’t forget that. We even once had a “professional” actor for a president. But my, oh my how things have changed.

Most of you are too young to remember Senator Ed Muskie from Maine. Muskie was a former Maine Governor and U.S. Senator and served as Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter. He was the democratic nominee for Vice President in 1968 on the ticket with Hubert Humphrey.

During the campaign, certain members of the press decided to attack and smear Muskie’s wife. In defending her, he showed emotion – not necessarily crying and shedding tears, but showed emotion. That act served to perhaps prevent Humphrey and Muskie from winning. At the time it was often stated that such an outward show of emotion revealed a man’s instability. Some even suggested it would ruin his political career.

Aside from the political hacking that has forever taken place, we lived then at a time when it was considered a substantial weakness in a man’s character to show emotion, especially as trivial (as perceived) as standing up for his wife and as a candidate for vice president.

Today? Well that’s a different story from nearly 50 years ago. Today, whether the “tears” are fake or real, evidently it’s cool to do. You see, the line between male and female has been deliberately skewed, to a point that, if we are still around in 8 or so years, chances are pretty good that the United States will have their first ever transgendered queer.

Think not? The Boy Scouts of America just announced that they would allow transgenders to their club, provided the parents put on the person’s application that they persuaded toward male. Uh huh!

Share

A Threat to “Foreign Policy”?

Below is Barack Obama’s Executive Order for the continuation of a declared “National Emergency” in the Republic of the Congo. Interesting that, as spelled out in the EO, the national emergency threat is to the “foreign policy” of the United States. Not a threat to the nation or to the people of the U.S. or Congo, but to the FOREIGN POLICY of the United States Corporation.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Notice of October 21, 2016 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo On October 27, 2006, by Executive Order 13413, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in that country. The President took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities that continue to threaten regional stability. I took additional steps to deal with this national emergency in Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 2014.

The situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006, as amended by Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 2014, and the measures adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 27, 2016. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo declared in Executive Order 13413, as amended by Executive Order 13671.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 21, 2016.

Share

What Slick Willy and “W” Started, Barry Finished

You figure it out. If you ain’t smart enough, you’ll just keep on doing what you been doing.

ninechartsClick on Image to Enlarge

Share

Will Quimby’s New Obama Playground Destroy Baxter State Park?

Oh, the cries to protect wilderness! Many cried to protect the beauty and the “wilderness” of the Yellowstone National Park. And did they? I suppose it depends on your political perspective definition of what “wilderness” is…right Slick Willie?

Yellowstone, often described as the model of how all lands should be “protected” has limited access but fits boldly into the model of an urban, sterile society, too damned lazy to get out of their plush, climate controlled automobiles to enjoy the actual wilderness. Wilderness seems to have morphed into a drive through municipal zoo. But don’t tell anyone.

So Roxanne Quimby, insisting on protecting Maine’s forests and wilderness, cried in the urban jungle to the corrupt politicians for a national park on her land. Not getting her way, yet, she had to settle for the work of cronyism from President Obama – some sort of reciprocating nonsense due to him appointing her to the board of the National Parks – and a national monument designation.

The question I have always had, and one that I read just this morning that someone else had expressed, is how do you protect “wilderness” by building and paving roads, erecting buildings, running infrastructure, such as water, sewer and electricity. Makes little sense.

Baxter State Park has a long common boundary with the new ObamaQuimby playground. The parks director is legitimately concerned about what effect visitors to the Katahdin Woods and Waters (KW&W) will have on Baxter. The director says that, “In order to preserve its wilderness as much as possible, Baxter strives to limit access to about 75,000 visitors annually.”

The director also shares the existing troubles of managing the park because Mt. Katahdin in the terminus of the Appalachian Trail. “Trail officials have been working with Baxter leaders for more than two years to alleviate chronic friction points, such as litter, alcohol and drug use on the trail, as well as large groups ascending Baxter Peak to party in celebration of a hiker’s completion of the mammoth journey. Too many thru-hikers were inviting large parties into campgrounds set aside for trail hikers, and bringing dogs falsely marked as service animals, Bissell has said.” Yes, Americans are so conscientious about protecting “wilderness.”

It’s difficult to get any sense of how concerned the Baxter director should be. While the same Bangor Daily News article states that there has already been some visitors to the Katahdin Woods and Waters, it would be my guess that curiosity is the motivating factor. Once they see that there is nothing to see, word will spread and visitors will be limited…that is until such time as they pave roads, build lodging, put in restaurants, snack bars and souvenir stands. Don’t forget the street lights and lighted parking lots. Remember, all in the name of protecting the wilderness, Mainers were sold the story that a national monument/park would boost the local economy. That’s what protecting wilderness is about. Doublespeak is what all that was and is.

Are there restrictions on what can and can’t be built on National Monument land? Yes, but that is left up to political perspective. Roads and buildings can be erected so long as they fulfill the directives and the purposes of the national monument. But isn’t the ultimate goal here a national park, where they can do anything they want, including the banning of hunting, trapping, fishing, use of ATVs and snowmobiles, etc.? It’s easy to lie and tell the people they will be able to carry on with some of the usual recreation activities on restricted portions of the land, while it’s a national monument. What about after it becomes a park?

The concern by the director of Baxter State Park, is that visitors to the KW&W will cross over the boundary on Baxter’s eastern boundary, which is managed as pretty much actual wilderness, and destroy it with their filth and decadence. It will happen, sooner or later.

Will the “wilderness” of KW&W end up like all the others – paved roads, buildings and retail shops – where lazy visitors can cruise around the paved roads, smogging up the landscape, discarding their trash, defecating beside the road and at pullout sites? Will it expand and destroy Baxter State Park? Will Baxter Park get swallowed up by KW&W like Roxanne Quimby first envisioned?

Time will tell.

And just as a reminder,

DON’T GO LOOK!

quimbybaxter

deplorables

Share

The President’s Unfinished Promise: The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy

*Editor’s Note* – This is comical in a way and a great example of smoke and mirrors propped up in front of an unsuspecting population.

Some people are frustrated with fraudulent science. Laughable, however, is that the frustration is often times rooted in one’s ideological perspective of what they want things to be. Understand that this affliction is not restricted to one false political ideology over another.

In the examples spoken of below, “scientists,” and others, were happy to hear from Barack Obama’s mouth that he was going to “restore science to it’s rightful place” saying that no longer would science take a back seat to ideology. Right! The problem that exists is that the entire world operates within a snow-globe of ideology. Ignorance strangles us rendering us incapable of independent thought and the desire to find truth in answers. Therefore, whatever the issue indoctrinated into is, we can only perceive it as being right and all else is wrong.

There’s too much money to be made promoting political ideology masked as science. Once again we see the mistake, nay, insanity, our world is afflicted with. We believe, we want to believe, the words of man. Man lies. Man is deceptive. Man makes bitter promises. Man has no truth.

In this case, some wanted to believe Obama’s words when he said he would put science back in it’s rightful place. Our desire as True Believers, failing to learn from history, and we cannot see that Obama’s “truth” was, yet again, a lie. In his mind, like the minds of some many others, science’s “rightful place” was that cesspool of corruption and deceit that will yield the greatest of political favors, payoffs, and immense power and control.

It’s easy to say that the next administration needs to do a better job and get it right, but they never will. It is not their intention to get science and the scientific process right. It is their intention to continue their criminal activities that will best line their pockets. To think otherwise is insanity.

It has been common for scientists, including me, to criticize previous federal administrations for condoning scientific misconduct when it comes to denying climate change or ignoring environmental concerns. So when, in April 2009, President Obama told the National Academy of Sciences “ we are restoring science to its rightful place“, and “ the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over,” the scientists in the audience, including me, gave him a standing ovation. The president then instructed his science advisor Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to issue uniform guidelines for a strong federal scientific integrity policy within three months. But nearly seven years later, there is still no meaningful federal scientific integrity policy, and parts of the Obama administration have continued to misuse science to support ideology. The next administration can, and should, do better.

It took OSTP more than 18 months to issue feeble guidelines that gave individual federal agencies complete discretion to develop their own policies. How effective are those individual policies? The answer is that the policies vary from strong to very weak.

Source: The President’s Unfinished Promise: The Federal Government Still Lacks a Meaningful Scientific Integrity Policy

Share

Keeping Campaign Promises for a National Park?

*Editor’s Note* – We all know Angus King was bought and paid for, mostly with Michael Bloomberg money and being in lockstep with Obama. Voting against action that would place more authority in state’s hands to prevent the Federal Government from continuing its onslaught of land stealing, one has to wonder if Angus King (with dot connecting) voted against this bill in order to stay in lockstep with Obama, Bloomberg and Roxanne Quimby.

Senate vote 1

DECLARING NATIONAL MONUMENTS: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to the Energy Policy Modernization Act. The amendment would have required the expiration within three years of any presidential declaration of a national monument if the declaration is not subsequently authorized by federal law and state law where the monument is located.

Lee said recent presidents have overridden the interests of those located near federal lands with monument declarations that deprive them of livelihoods earned on the lands, making the amendment necessary to give those residents “a voice in the land management decisions of their community.”

An amendment opponent, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, said it sought to give states an unprecedented veto authority over federal land management practices, hurting the president’s ability to use monument designations to protect threatened lands.

The vote was 47 yeas to 48 nays. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, gave a yea vote, and Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, gave a nay vote.<<<Source>>>

Share

Black Conservatives Critical of Obama’s State of the Union Address

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Puffy, Partisan Speech Further Mires President’s Lamentable Legacy

“You Can’t Put Enough Lipstick on This Pig of His to Make It Look Pretty”

WASHINGTON, DC – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are commenting on – and available for interviews about – President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union Address.

While starting out talking about alleged areas for potential bipartisan accomplishment, the agenda President Obama quickly pivoted to and championed throughout the rest of his speech to Congress encompassed a big-government agenda he has always sought to enact with or without the support of elected lawmakers – such as relaxing immigration rules, increasing the minimum wage and new energy regulation.

“Although I didn’t support President Obama’s candidacy either time that he ran, I thought he would be good for race relations. Instead of uniting Americans under the mantle of Dr. Martin Luther King, the president has engaged in a sustained attack on the foundational values that once bound Americans together: family, faith and work.Tonight, the President ignored the persecution of Christians in the Arab world while castigating us all for perceived injustices to Muslims. He further demonized millions of Americans who don’t believe in man-made anthropological climate change. And he pandered to a tiny partisan crowd by promising more free programs on the backs of taxpayers. It’s hardly a speech to be proud of,” said Project 21 member Stacy Washington , host of the “Stacy on the Right” talk radio program on FM News Talk 97.1 in St. Louis. “We can only hope that the next 12 months will be less eventful, less taxing and have fewer transformations. Obama’s campaign slogan was ‘hope and change.’ We’ve been changed for the worse. We can only hope for the remaining term to pass by quickly.”

Black conservatives with Project 21 have offered comments on each and every State of the Union Address during the Obama presidency.

“Since this was his last State of the Union Address, I was looking for President Obama to say something monumental. I was looking for him to finally stop playing politics and show some true leadership. It was all too clear, however, that Obama plans to leave office with the same sound and fury with which he arrived – but now he’s leaving a terrible mess in his wake,” said Project 21 member Council Nedd II, a bishop for the Episcopal Missionary Church of South Africa and an elected constable in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. “Hauntingly, President Obama’s legacy is turning back the clock on race relation and seeing repeated attacks on legal gun owners while exhibiting an apparent ignorance to rampant violence that grips places such as his political hometown of Chicago. Obama has helped foster and foment an environment that brands law enforcement as the enemy and exalts criminals as martyrs. He has coddled ISIS and ignored the persecution of faith abroad to the point where several 2,000-year-old Christian communities have literally been eradicated. What are we to actually make of all this?”

Project 21 member Christopher Arps , a small businessman and political consultant in St. Louis who is now helping with a major presidential campaign in Iowa, said: “President Obama’s final State of the Union Address was supposed to be an effort to help seal his legacy. Unfortunately for him, you can’t put enough lipstick on this pig of his to make it look pretty. His true legacy will be remembered in his $1 trillion dollar failed ‘stimulus,’ the hobbling of the greatest health care system in the world, Islamic terrorism run amok, a feckless foreign policy with a dangerous nuclear deal with the rogue state of Iran, and – last, but not least – an economy growing at a tepid pace that has a record 90 million people out of work. It’s not a legacy he should be very proud of.”

Tonight’s speech was one that shot for the Moon, but Americans’ hopes remain stuck on the ground due to the partisan bitterness this president has fostered to ram through an often unpopular agenda,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin , a Navy veteran and small businessman in the Washington, D.C. area. “President Obama opened with the statement that Americans should not live in fear of the future, but too many Americans do fear the future because of the threat of terrorism at home and aboard. And that’s just one thing. In poll after poll, a majority of Americans feel our nation is on the wrong track under President Obama’s leadership. While he stood in the well of the Congress trying to give an optimistic report, the reality is that Americans just aren’t feeling it in their wallets or their lives.”

Project 21 members have logged tens of thousands of interview and media citations. Media that recently sought out Project 21 insight includes on TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, the Orlando Sentinel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WHO-Des Moines, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh. Topics included civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, voter ID, race preferences, education, illegal immigration and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 members provided substantial commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray incidents. Project 21 has also defended voter ID laws at the United Nations.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org). Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Memorandum — Promoting Smart Gun Technology

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SUBJECT:      Promoting Smart Gun Technology

For more than 20 years, the Federal Government has worked to keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.  This critical effort in addressing gun violence has prevented more than two million prohibited firearms purchases from being completed.  But tens of thousands of people are still injured or killed by firearms every year — in many cases by guns that were sold legally but then stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally.  Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these tragedies is an urgent priority.

In 2013, I directed the Department of Justice to review the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies, such as devices requiring a scan of the owner’s fingerprint before a gun can fire.  In its report, the Department made clear that technological advancements in this area could help reduce accidental deaths and the use of stolen guns in criminal activities.

Millions of dollars have already been invested to support research into a broad range of concepts for improving gun safety.  We must all do our part to continue to advance this research and encourage its practical application, and it is possible to do so in a way that makes the public safer and is consistent with the Second Amendment.  The Federal Government has a unique opportunity to do so, as it is the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country.  Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1.  Research and Development.  The Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security (departments) shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.  Not later than 90 days after the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare jointly a report outlining a research and development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.

Sec. 2.  Department Consideration of New Technology.  The departments shall, to the extent permitted by law, regularly (a) review the availability of the technology described in section 1, and (b) explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.  In connection with these efforts, the departments shall consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Sec. 3.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

  1. the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
  2. the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 4.  Publication.  The Attorney General is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Share