January 30, 2023

Next Up For H(I)S(I)US: Ban Mountain Lion Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – It seems that with these extremists, like H(I)S(I)US, that the only qualifier in killing any animal is when a person’s live is threatened. HSUS makes me feel like my life is being threatened. So, now what?

In November 2018, the world’s wealthiest animal-rights organization intends to ask Arizona voters to ban mountain lion, bobcat and other big-cat hunting. Operating under the name ‘Arizonans for Wildlife,’ the campaign is really being spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The group filed language on September 25 with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to allow the signature-gathering process to begin in an effort to qualify the issue for the 2018 ballot. If the language is approved, the HSUS-led group would have to gather 150,642 valid voter signatures by July 5, 2018 to qualify for the election on November 6, 2018.

The language filed by the anti-hunting group would remove mountain lions and bobcats from the state’s list of huntable species. Under the proposed language, mountain lions and bobcats, along with jaguars, ocelots and lynx, would be called “wild cats,” and be prohibited from hunting or trapping.<<<Read More>>>


How Timothy McVeigh’s Ideals Entered the Mainstream

*Editor’s Note* – This article is a great example of why most “mainstream” media are unbelievable and dangerous in the long haul. Only to someone with actual factual knowledge, can they understand that much of what the author states as fact, is actually false information. On the other end of things, many things the author presents as being false information, is true…at least to some degree.

Republican politicians now often echo conspiracy theories once relegated to troglodyte pamphlets.

Source: How Timothy McVeigh’s Ideals Entered the Mainstream


Who? Religious Extremistists



Kill People, Save Wild Dogs

CrosshairsAbout ten days ago I posted information sent to me by Idaho for Wildlife concerning a planned event – a coyote and wolf derby. I then sat back to watch the fireworks and I’d surmise that the fireworks display has been quite predictable, if not revoltingly nauseating and a very poor reflection on today’s human species.

While the planned coyote and wolf derby is a legal event, personally I don’t oppose it but I would be dishonest if I didn’t at least say that I thought the event does present itself, to animal worshipers, as a bit of in your face. This is at least to the extent that those involved with the derby should not have been surprised that shortly after the announcement of the competition, death threats followed.

But I’m not here to discuss the ups and downs of wolf and coyote derbies. Perhaps lost, in a deeper, more meaningful issue is what has transpired in the degradation of human society.

First of all, let me make it clear that I have not spent much time at all following all the ins and outs of what has transpired since the announcement of the coyote and wolf derby. It is my understanding from emails and information I have been sent, along with a miniscule sampling of mainstream media sources, that the threats have been mostly typical, and as I said expected.

The threats have ranged from “hanging an entire family,” and, “burn the business down,” also, “sick ______ like you need to be removed from the planet.” While I’m sure far worse than this has shown up in other media platforms, none of us should lose sight of the fact that this is unsatisfactory human behavior…….at least to those of us who find value in decency, common respect and a love of the human species. Certainly, actions and reactions of the type on display here is below that of an animal.

When we put the entire larger issue into perspective, it appears difficult, if not impossible, for some to grasp the understanding that humans are threatening each others’ lives over a wild dog. Is this what has become of the human race?

Earlier this morning I was reading information written about mountain lions and the person who wrote some of it made a remark about how “cougars killed only 15 people.” The message embedded in statements such as this is that the life of any animal creature, regardless of the numbers, needs protecting, rationalizing that 15 human lives sacrificed is unblinkingly acceptable. Sick! If you disagree, it is your right to do so, but you are wrong.

I read another comment left by a very educated and now retired person from the medical field who stated that in order to love one has to first learn to hate. If this is true, how long do we humans have to wait in order to see the harvest of love sowed by the seeds of hatred? The answer is forever. Nobody can learn to love by first hating. Making statements like this is about as evil as evil can be and I pity the person who has been so wrongly affected by the circumstances of life that they actually believe this.

On display in Idaho, are no fewer than two very seriously flawed and troubling human traits. One, is the fact that time and the influences of our everyday life, have turned us into a people that places animals at par or even above that of humans. Humans are caretakers of animals and the environment of the planet we live on, but not at the expense of human life. Lost is all of this is the value of the human. As a society, we are drifting away from a worshiping of the Creator and replacing it with a worship of the creation.

Secondly, our society is full of hate. Respect for the fellow man is being pared away leaving an inner core of sinful anger, entitlement, disrespect, selfishness and greed; gripping some so badly they reveal their undisciplined selves to threaten people and their property over an animal. If you don’t consider this serious and wrong, I am sorry for you that you are so blinded you can’t see the wrong in it.

Most will pass this off as mostly meaningless, believing and stating that there are always extremists on both sides of all issues and it is non representative of Americans. I disagree. Is it an acceptable action of extremists wishing death and destruction on fellow humans?

Little by little, with each passing event, the downward spiral of a troubled and secular society grows. It’s far easier to pass this off as no big deal than it is to actually do something about it. So far, we’ve mostly chosen to do nothing about it.


NRA’s LaPierre Responds to President’s Inaugural Address


Thank you for that kind introduction. And thank you for your warm welcome.

Yesterday in his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama quoted the Declaration of Independence and he talked about “unalienable rights.” I would argue that his words make a mockery of both.

I’d like to talk to you about one line near the end of Barack Obama’s speech where he said, quote “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle.” Let me quote the president again: “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle.”

So what is this “absolutism” the president attacks? And what are the so-called “principles” that he wants us to settle for instead?

Obama wants to turn the idea of “absolutism” into a dirty word, just another word for “extremism.” He wants you to accept the idea of “principles” as he sees fit to define them. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside-down and nobody knows the difference.

Think about it. As families, when we’re broke and all our credit cards are maxed out, we’re forced to tighten our belts.

But when the government is broke and our bond rating is tumbling and the president wants more new social programs, borrowing more money is supposed to be “principled.” And anybody who questions that is a no-good “absolutist” — Obama code for extremist.

We as gun owners face the same kind of false ultimatum. We’re told that to stop insane killers, we must accept less freedom — less than the criminal class and political class keep for themselves.

We’re told that limits on magazine capacity or bans on 100-year-old firearms technology — bans that only affect lawful people — will somehow make us safer.

We’re told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of “absolutism” and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the only “principled” way to live.

Think about what that means. Barack Obama is saying that the only “principled” way to make children safe is to make lawful citizens less safe and violent criminals more safe.

Criminals couldn’t care less about Barack Obama’s so-called “principles”! They don’t have principles — that’s why they’re criminals.

Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction — except those between criminals — will somehow make us safer.

That means forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one — standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.

There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners — to tax them or take them. And to anyone who says that’s excessive, Barack Obama says you’re an “absolutist.”

He doesn’t understand you. He doesn’t agree with the freedoms you cherish. If the only way he can force you to give ’em up is through scorn and ridicule, he’s more than willing to do it — even as he claims the moral high ground.

He said it yesterday! In the very same sentence that Obama talked about “absolutism” versus “principle,” he also scolded his critics for “name-calling,” as he called it.

He’s more than willing to demonize his opponents, silence his critics and slur the NRA — in the words of Senator Charles Schumer, as an “extremist fringe group.” And look at how he demonizes Republicans in Congress.

When Barack Obama says, “we cannot mistake absolutism for principle,” what he’s saying is that precision and clarity and exactness in language and law should be abandoned in favor of his nebulous, undefined “principles.”

I’ve got news for the president. Absolutes do exist. Words do have specific meaning, in language and in law. It’s the basis of all civilization. It’s why our laws are written down: So the “letter of the law” carries the force of the law.

That’s why our Bill of Rights was written into law, to ensure the fundamental freedoms of a minority could never be denied by a majority. Those are the principles we call unalienable rights.

Without those absolutes, without those protections, democracy decays into nothing more than two wolves and one lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined “absolutes” in favor of his “principles.”

Mister President, just because you wish words meant something other than what they mean, you don’t have the right to define them any way you want. Because when words can mean anything, they mean nothing.

When “absolutes” are abandoned for “principles,” the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti and our rights and freedoms are defaced.

Words do have meaning, Mister President. And those meanings are absolute, especially when it comes to our Bill of Rights.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from former Democratic U.S. Senator and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Fifty years ago, after he had been appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, liberal Justice Hugo Black said, and I quote: “There are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.'” End quote.

Let me read that again. “There are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.'”

Justice Black understood the danger of self-appointed arbiters of what “freedom” really means — like President Barack Obama — who want to redefine freedom, whittle away freedom and infringe upon the freedoms that we the people reserve to ourselves.

They’re God-given freedoms. They belong to us as our birthright. No government ever gave them to us and no government can ever take them away.

Mister President, you may not like that. You may wish it were some other way. But you can’t argue that it isn’t true.

In that, the American people are, and will always remain, utterly absolute! We are not people to be trivialized, marginalized or demonized as unreasonable. We’re not children who need to be parented or misguided “bitter clingers” to guns and religion.

We get up every day, we work hard to pay our taxes, we cherish our families and we care about their safety. We believe in living honorably, and living within our means.

We believe we deserve, and have every right to, the same level of freedom that our government leaders keep for themselves, and the same capabilities and same technologies that criminals use to prey upon us and our families. That means we believe in our right to defend ourselves and our families with semi-automatic technology.

We believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class is limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn’t be limited in our capacity either.

We believe in our country. We believe in our Bill of Rights. And we believe in our Second Amendment, all of our Second Amendment. Because we believe in the freedom and safety that it, and it alone, guarantees absolutely.

Mister President, you might think that calling us “absolutists” is a clever way of “name-calling” without using names. But if that is “absolutist,” then we are as “absolutist” as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution … and we’re proud of it!

Thank you very much!