November 24, 2017

The Left, The Right, Reality and Zinke’s Proposed Forest Management Practices

From the Left all we ever hear is “We’re all gonna die!” From the Right all we ever hear is “It’s about time we’re gonna get it right!” The reality is nothing ever changes. But, don’t go look. The Left/Right paradigm is fake but exists only in echoed rhetoric and that is exactly what we are seeing when Trump’s new Secretary of the Interior announced changes in forest management practices.

The West is burning up, as one report this morning stated. Forest fires are popping up everywhere and as is usually the case, the Left blames is on Global Warming, and the Right blames it on poor forest management practices that result in the creation of tinder boxes.

Another example of the emotional reactions of brainwashed and blinded people is that immediately fear mongering began about the possibility that a tree might now be cut on Maine’s new and mostly unwanted national monument, Katahdin Woods and Waters.

The Right claims that their intent is “a healthy forest through active timber management,” with never a definition of the intent – and that is for a reason. The Left threatens a lawsuit if Zinke tries to cut down one tree in Katahdin Woods and Waters.

St. Clair, the original owner’s son, who is now the front man, without having a clue what Zinke meant by changing forest management practices, said, “We didn’t donate this land to be used as a commercial timbering operation.”

And this is business as usual here in the U.S. of A. While nothing changes in the Federal Government, except that which the ruling establishment wants to change and Congress just does as they are told, a part of what never changes, which is the reason the Federal Government gets away with what they do, is that the Left and Right continue their reactions and responses in the usual manner. In this case, the Left says we’re all gonna die and the Right says it’s about time to get it right. And then it’s on to the next round of fake announcements and none of these mouthy people ever go back to examine exactly what took place.

I think James Beers, former member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says it quite well as to why nothing will change – except the emotional rhetoric that always accompanies false political announcement. The Left controls every aspect of government, as well as every non-governmental agency. Because of the infiltration and successful years of brainwashing and mind control throughout our indoctrination factories, even those, like Sec. Zinke, who, to the Left, appears to be a Rightist intent on destroying the forests, cannot help but do anything except what the Left desires – protect the forests and create the tinder boxes. Only politics calls for the political rhetoric to satisfy the voters of each perspective party.

Beers points out much the same when he says that the only way anything could change is through serious changes and/or repeals of certain draconian federal laws that prohibit change of any kind. And we know that will NEVER happen because it is not intended to happen. And so we keep on keeping on.

Beers writes in a recent email:

All of these above mentioned reasons for fuel accumulation and many, many other dwindling public land benefits that are slated for elimination by fiats, regulations and unjust law authorities granted federal bureaucrats in the past 40 to 50 years have a common taproot..  Past Administrations, their appointees and the bureaucrat “scientists” they have hired, all have this land closure and sustainable natural resource management elimination  as their ultimate goal.  Unless and until that “legal” (?) authorization for federal bureaucrats in federal laws like the ESA and Wilderness Act is either repealed or severely and specifically controlled in the specific federal laws authorizing such tyranny I don’t believe these somewhat generic and feel-good directives amount to anything.  The next Administration (look to all the Obama directives and letters, etc. on a wide variety of subjects) will simply issue their own directives (and probably in less than 9 months) and just drop the government truck into high gear and truck on down the road from where they left off on 19 January, 2017.

Because we cannot see, with each announced or “leaked” (that’s funny) change to anything, we will always keep hearing, we’re all gonna die, and it’s about time to get it right, but the truth is nothing ever changes, because “We the People” call all the shots and “we the people” have nothing to say about it – but we are trained to think we do.

Yep, somethings never change. Just more talk.

Share

NRA To Washington Post: You Do More To Damage The Country With Your Keyboards Than Our Members Ever Have With Their Guns

*Editor’s Note* – SAY WHAT??? I must be tired this morning.

The media is a better option since they sin in ways great and small every day and everyone on the right has their own list of grievances about them. And the NRA’s base is decidedly right-wing: Per a recent Pew survey, 77 percent are either Republican or lean Republican, making them prime targets for an anti-journo message. For the moment, Trump’s running for reelection a la the old Bush 41 joke, “Annoy the media, vote Republican.” This is the gun-rights version of that. Annoy the media, support the NRA.<<<Read More>>>

Share

But Isn’t It ALL FAKE?

The Patriot Post has an article about how “nefarious,” “alarming” and “minus perspective” media reports have become concerning global warming. While the author’s information may or may not be true, does it really matter? Disputing what and how others report on “Climate Change” is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

The article states: “Like any policy discussion, the field of science can be easily distorted and misconstrued when it lacks proper perspective and insight.”

Great! But, so what? If the New York Times reports that, “nothing can be attributed to mere natural causes any more. It all has to be because of global warming,” and this is followed by a report that science can and is distorted along with a lack of honest perspective with no truth presented for readers, it is then “Fake News.” In the context of what is being written, one has to ask then if rebutting on “Fake News” doesn’t by default become “Fake News?”

Who knows what the proper terminology should be for what is being written. It’s all mostly a lie and worthless (to me) propaganda. I understand that media outlets have to make money and so they publish what they think will make them money. Not everyone can see it as such. Of course the Media hide behind their responsibility as journalists, blah, blah, blah. However, the short and long of it all is that it’s but mere entertainment and that’s why we read what we read. Who would actually read facts and figures?

The reader isn’t interested in discovering truth because to do so requires work. One has to dig beyond the emotional clap-trap. Nobody does that nor do they care. And, the media knows that and that’s why they entertain their readers with Fake News because THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT TO READ AND HEAR!

Consequently what we are left with is Fake News, faking out the fakers who fake news.

Share

There Is No Credibility When Talking Moose and Global Warming

It’s just a constant echo chamber! It never ends. Stupid begets stupid and the heritage of ignorance is perpetuated.

Moose in Northern New England are being killed by winter ticks…at least that is part of the reason. So long as fake scientists, along with the tools of the inept media echo chambers keep repeating utter nonsense, there is no hope.

In a recent diatribe from an environmental website, there is a relentless onslaught of how global warming and the existence of man is just screwing everything up. As an example of just plain stupidity, the author tells readers that what destroyed the moose in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont around the turn of the century was unregulated hunting and logging operations: “the moose—nearly disappeared from New England in the 19th century, a result of unregulated hunting and the clearing of forests.”

This statement is immediately followed by this one: “In recent decades, they found ideal habitat among the mechanized logging operations of Maine…. The timber industry provides a constant supply of new tree growth, the animal’s primary food.”

In another recent email I received, someone was quoted to say that warmer winters were a benefit to the deer population in Maine, followed by a statement saying, however, global warming was killing off all the deer in Maine.

There is no credibility. It matters not whether there is full, some or no truth in the points these people are trying to make. When you make such absurd statements that once a Second Grader could pick up on, one must find real difficulty in swallowing any of the rest of the regurgitated offal the media and fake scientists toss out at us.

The short of it all is this. Greed and the perverse worship of animals (worship of the creation over the Creator) demands that wild animals can be viewed regularly from the comfort of ones home or automobiles. An honest scientific application to achieve healthy wildlife populations has taken a back seat to social demands made by ignorant and greedy people unwilling to get outdoors and find the creatures where they are.

With this ingrained into our society, don’t ever expect that things will change…there will continue to be prevalent diseases.

My God! Didn’t we use to learn this stuff in like 3rd Grade?

Share

Ford’s Funding of “Fake News” Through Ad Revenue Raises Questions

*Editor’s Question* – When Obama was in the White House and Fox News spent every waking minute being “hostile” toward the man, was Fox News also “Fake News?” Isn’t this just getting a bit carried away?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Shareholder Activists Want to Ask Ford Motor Company Executives About Potential Backlash for Advertising on News Programs Hostile to Trump Administration

Will Automaker Use Virtual Format to Avoid Answering Tough Investor Inquiries?

Washington, DC – On Thursday, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – will seek to ask Ford Motor Company executives if they believe there is a reputational risk and potential consumer backlash from advertising on television news programs hostile to the Trump Administration.  FEP representatives are hoping for the opportunity to pose this tough question during Ford’s first online shareholder meeting – a departure from traditional in-person meetings.

“Ford executives will be tested to see if they are willing to tackle hard questions at a virtual shareholder meeting where they control access,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi.  “When liberal politicians wanted to avoid angry constituents during the Tea Party movement, they held virtual meetings to avoid uncomfortable interaction.  We are hoping Ford executives will not employ the same strategy.  Annual meetings are the one time a year when shareholders can question corporate leadership.  To restrict that opportunity would be a disservice to the investment community.”

The Ford shareholder meeting will be held on May 11 at 8:30AM eastern in an audio-only format accessible through the Ford website.

During the meeting’s question and answer session, FEP hopes to ask if Ford executives think that advertising on news programs hostile to the Trump Administration could harm the Ford brand by exposing it to “reputational risk” now that “fake news” and leaked emails showing collusion between liberal political operatives and members of the media have caused public trust in the media to plunge.

“We filed a shareholder resolution asking Ford to detail the risk to its reputation of doing business with media outlets that were exposed by WikiLeaks as working closely with the political class to promote specific political and policy agendas.  Rather than being transparent about such risks, the company petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking approval to exclude our proposal, arguing that this was an issue in which shareholders shouldn’t have a say.  The SEC ultimately agreed with Ford, but we are still seeking answers,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who is set to represent FEP at the meeting.  “Now, many of those same news outlets that we expressed concern about in our proposal are seemingly at war with the White House.  President Trump has called much of the mainstream media an enemy of the American people and has accused specific media outlets of peddling fake news.  The risks to Ford’s reputation of continuing to advertise with such outlets appear to be increasing, not diminishing.”

This is the third time FEP will participate in a Ford shareholder meeting.  In 2011, FEP asked Ford to reassess its membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a fringe political group pushing regulations that FEP noted might negatively impact Ford and its consumers. Ford left USCAP  in 2012.  In 2014, a FEP representative asked the automaker to educate the public about how government regulations increase the cost of producing a vehicle and to consider listing regulatory impact on sales stickers of new Ford cars and trucks.

 Launched in 2007, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group – focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business.  Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.  This is the fourteenth shareholder meeting the FEP has attended in 2017.

The National Centers Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:

  • FEPs highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundations activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEPs challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEPs Employee Conscience Protection Project strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassels 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

 

 The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.  Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 60,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

Climate Change is Affecting Brain Cells of Reporters and Scientists

Hell, why not. I vowed I wasn’t going to waste my time further correcting and offering some honest appraisal of the way in which agenda-driven journalists and scientists use speculation and unproven statements of fact to sell copy and/or promote an agenda – one that most often in connected with money.

However…….

I was reading the other day an article published by Accuweather.com carrying with it the title, “Moose-Killing Ticks Thrive in Shorter Winters Due to Climate Change.” It is so filled with inaccuracies and outright fraud that I couldn’t let it fall by the wayside. More people need to call these frauds out and make them pay.

Let’s start at the beginning. I will post here a statement and then offer rebuttal.

“Moose calves across northern New England are dying at alarming rates, and scientists believe that deadly parasites benefiting from shorter winters are the primary culprits.” – Please understand simple English. Scientists “believe” does NOT verify any such fact. As a matter of fact, if you took the time to read every available “study” on this topic, nearly all of the information is copy and pasted from someone else and text is loaded with terms such as, “believe,” “suspect,” “might,” “assumed,” etc. I acknowledge that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are in the middle of moose studies, mostly to determine the causes of death. If they are able to do this, God only knows what useless drivel they will charge us with after the fact. Instead of reporting that “scientists believe,” perhaps a bit more honesty would be a better approach, i.e. “from information gathered to this point of the study, along with data and information provided from previous studies, winter ticks are found to be…….blah, blah, blah. But that doesn’t sell copies nor does it sway public opinion, leaving them with the unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, emotional, clap-trap claims that winter ticks, due, of course, to “Climate Change” are killing moose “at alarming rates.” And to further clarify, I might ask, is this “alarming” rate one of perspective from the author, the scientist, the next-door neighbor, the dog or the cat? How does this “alarming” rate compare to other years, perhaps dating back to the time of Noah? They won’t tell you because they don’t know.

“…killing about 70 percent of moose calves.” – Where does this information come from? (Boston Globe) It is important to know because I have spent enough hours, days, weeks, months and years studying this information to know that there exists a tiny number of actual studies of the winter tick or moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) to know that even within the handful of studies, one study is used to support the other study…as studies go. Right or wrong, it matters not to a reporter interested in a story. Where did this statistic come from? It is important because for one, it renders much of the entire article without any credibility. But, again, that doesn’t stop the effort to sell copy.

““It’s just off the charts; this should not happen with such frequency,” said [the] chairman of the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). “This is about a calf carrying 75,000 ticks that are draining it of blood.”” – This is emotional clap-trap, which, of course, sells copies. I understand the use of an analogy to describe what this person perceives as a whole bunch of ticks that are found on moose. If you’ve seen a moose covered in winter ticks, it is quite astonishing. However, a scientist/professional should refrain from such emotional nonsense. “Off the charts.” What charts. Is this person saying that he has historic, scientific charts that show that 75,000 winter ticks on a moose is the highest it’s ever been? If so, produce them. If not, one has to wonder if there isn’t money to be made by influencing public opinion while playing on their emotions by describing the dire misery a poor and innocent moose calf might be experiencing.

This same person also states, “this should not happen with such frequency.” How does he know this? Once again I ask that he provide the historic, scientific documentation that shows ticks in numbers of 75,000 is higher than it’s ever been. Or is this about perpetuating an unproven theory about Climate Change and attaching it to a moose study that might be in need of more money?

“… at the center of a six-year study in which researchers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are attaching tracking devices to moose as part of an effort to learn how ticks are affecting them.” – I have addressed this in the past. The claim by all three state’s studies is that they are trying to determine the mortality rates of moose and what forms of mortality are causing it. To claim that part of the study is to determine “how ticks are affecting” moose, cannot be done, other than to perhaps devise some percentage figure of how many moose deaths are caused by ticks. To learn how ticks affect moose, one must undertake a separate study of the tick, instead of simply relying on sketchy, echo-chamber studies that make claims that still remain unsubstantiated.

“In addition, unlike deer and other animals, moose appear to do a poorer job of removing ticks through grooming.” – This is an unscientific claim, for what purpose I’m not sure. “moose appear to do a poorer job.” I have to ask the question, appear to whom? Is it what the reporter perceives in his or her travels and research on moose, or is this just something he or she reads someplace else, repeating over and over again? I have read often in winter ticks studies that “it is thought to be” that moose aren’t as good at grooming as other wild ungulates, but I’ve never seen any scientific substantiation of that claim. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So, in short, we really don’t know if moose are poor groomers or whether the smell of their hair is a giant attractant, or some other such reason that might cause moose to attract winter ticks more than other ungulates. Why not? One guess is as good as another.

(Note: Readers should bear in mind that finding cures, answers and solutions to such scientific/biological “problems” dries up the money source. Finding solutions sends these scientists to the poor house.)

“Winter ticks may be thriving in part due to the New England ecosystem being disrupted by global climate change. According to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist …., the average winter temperature in Maine has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1895 and 2015.

“This region of the country is one of the areas that’s warming the fastest in the lower 48 (U.S. states),”” – I emphasized “may be” again, because it is not a scientific term. How can you report on science by repeatedly using such wishy-washy terms? But here’s the real kicker – one that the worshipers of Climate Change refuse or are incapable of understanding.

According to what this reporter says, a meteorologist claims that between 1895 and 2015 Maine “average winter temperature” has increased 4 degrees F. It is completely dishonest for any meteorologist to make this claim unless they can provide proof of the following extremely important elements of scientific temperature research: 1. That since 1895 the science collecting agency – it must remain the same agency providing the same data – is using the exact same equipment in 2015 that it used in 1895, and, 2. That the locations of the collection sites have not changed both geographically and its immediate surroundings, and, 3. That the agency responsible for the collection and perpetration of temperature data hasn’t “fudged” the data to promote agendas – that is agendas that are sure to continue the flow of cash as well as perpetuation of political agendas.

Science 101 tells us that in making comparative judgements of possible changes in anything, all testing and equipment used, etc. must always remain constant. How else can you make an honest assessment?

It has been often repeated in news reports (and yes, you decide if any of the information in those reports is truthful or not) that the locations of where temperatures are taken, have moved all over the map, destroying that portion of consistency. We can only assume that the equipment has all changed. Do we trust those involved to have made honest adjustments and provided transparency to inquiring minds as to how changes to sample collecting may have been altered?

We know that there has been more than one occasion when those involved with Climate Change, have lied about information and have manipulated the data in order to support claims made or to continue the promotion of collecting research monies and political agendas. NOAA, it was recently discovered, deliberately changed its data to influence “charts” like the one provided by Accuweather in this article to promote Climate Change. This is a criminal act but ignored because people just want, so badly, to be True Believers.

“According to …, a staff entomologist for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the winter tick benefits from a warming climate.” – Unless this person has conducted studies on the winter tick to make such a determination, it would be my guess that he is simply supporting the Climate Change Echo-Chamber. There is little science done that would support this claim, and others. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

““In the past, snowfall and freezing temperatures in early/mid spring have curbed winter tick populations by killing a percentage of those ticks that dropped off their host,”” – This unproven clap-trap is repeated so often, even scientists think it’s a fact. All one must do is spend a little bit of time gleaning through the documentation that does exist and you can discover just how extremely viable the winter tick is. Once you’ve learned that, you’ll see how silly it is to make claims that a week of snow here and a bit colder there, will kill the ticks at whatever stage they are at.

“…steadily rising temperatures have caused the fall season in New England to be slightly longer, by about a week, while the winters have also been shortened. That extra week in which winter is delayed gives ticks an extended window to latch onto moose for the duration of the winter.” – Odd that I just heard this same claim being made by a Maine biologist also studying moose this winter – echo-chamber of propaganda. (Boston Globe) It would seem to make sense to the average Joe, especially a mentally deficient one who thinks Climate Change is real, that a longer, warmer Fall season would, naturally (wink-wink) increase tick production. But does it? The truth is, these guys don’t know. They are only repeating what they have been told and refusing to pay attention to information that might be contradictory to the religion of Climate Change.

In studies that exist, the number one deterrent to ticks getting onto moose in the late Summer and early Fall, is weather…specifically wind. As part of the winter tick’s life cycle, in late summer the animal begins it’s ascent of vegetation – sometimes as high as 15-20 feet. Some “believe” this action is triggered by the duration of light as it is shortening heading into Fall. If there are brisk winds during this process, it will often blow the tick off the vegetation and they must begin their ascent again. If the timing is such, and this dynamic of tick-up-vegetation and getting on a moose is a short one, the tick fails to hitch a ride on the moose or other host for the coming winter. This, of course, breaks the life cycle and those ticks die.

It happens to be coincidental, or perhaps it was God’s plan, that at the same time that the ticks are making their way up the vegetation, that moose are at their most active stage – i.e. the mating season. This event also is “believed” to be caused by the same decreasing of available light. One could conclude that a skewing of these two events, even in small quantities could upset the tick’s life cycle, but how much?

It is not incorrect to state that an extra week of plant climbing for the ticks in Fall might contribute to some increased activity, however, the extent to which that might apply would be heavily dependent upon timing of the mating season and weather conditions.

“He added that climate change has the greatest impact on insects like ticks rather than large mammals like moose….the tick infestations are driving the moose die-offs.” – We must see some scientific substantiation of such claims. To make such a claim about how Climate Change has a greater influence on ticks suggests that the tick, at all stages of its life cycle, is susceptible to weather/climate changes. I have not read any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than that the winter ticks is an extremely viable creature that has very little in the way of negative influences due to climate and weather.

“While winter ticks may benefit from shorter winters, they are not helped by drought conditions.” – Yes, and I have read this now from several separate echo-chambers. All it takes is one news report to publish that drought conditions limit tick production and the media runs with it. Tomorrow it will be something else.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have already stated that wind is the single most determining factor to tick mortality during the vegetation-climbing stage. I have also stated that the tick is extremely viable in all temperatures and climate conditions, as can be attested in the varying climate worldwide where the tick survives quite well….thank you. These same studies, which seem to be of little interest to anyone else, also suggest two things: 1. Increased humidity can slow down tick activity, and 2. Cold and damp weather during the vegetation climbing phase and moose activity phase, MIGHT also slowdown tick activity. Contrary to reports that “old fashioned winters” KILL winter ticks, it appears to me that weather might only slow down their activity at differing times. It is for this and many other reasons that I am a firm believer that the reason the winter tick is being seen as a killer of moose is because wildlife managers have caved to the whims of society and have grown far too many moose. Perhaps time will give us that answer but I have serious doubts.

I have often told the story – and heck, why not one more time – of the man who went to his neighbor and asked to borrow his ax. The neighbor said, “No! It’s Tuesday.” Perplexed the man wanted to know what Tuesday had to do with borrowing his ax. The neighbor’s reply was, “Nothing! But if I don’t want you to borrow my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

As long as the media and science cling criminally to a false theory of Climate Change (they don’t want to loan their ax), taxpayers can expect nothing to change (one excuse is as good as another). With this in mind, all studies, like the ones now underway with moose and moose mortality, will be a waste of time and money. The real scientific method is no longer in play. Neither is honest journalism. We live in a post-normal society where the most important things in life have been cast aside and replaced with immoral, dishonest and self-serving agendas, i.e. the means justify the end.

Journalism today is to employ a keyboard and then just copy and paste what the last guy wrote. It seems that “science” has picked up the torch and is doing the same thing. This post-normal science is perpetuated by Scientism – the religious worship of fake science to prop up personal idealism.

Each time I do one of these rebuttals I say I’ll never waste my time again. Nobody cares and nobody listens. They only hear what they want to hear and this infectious disease has so deeply taken root in our society that the same approach is taken for everything that we do.

I just wonder!

 

Share

The Basic Principle of Product and Process

I was a very young man the first time I heard any reference to the child-rearing principle of working and earning those things that become important to you. I recall, many times, my parents making comments like: “Nobody can ever truly appreciate things given to them. You must work for what you want. It makes you understand and appreciate it more.” Working and appreciating is part of a process once taught to children to make them better people. Is that process being lost? It must be as we have entered the generation of entitlement, where far too many young people believe they are entitled to the many things those of us of a different generation worked very hard to achieve.

If you examine the Scriptures, you’ll find in Genesis all about the Creation. You will also discover that in the Garden of Eden, where Yehwah placed Adam and Eve to live, Eve went against the only commandment given – they couldn’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let’s look a tiny bit closer.

Yehwah and Adam were very busy. Yehwah was making things faster than Adam could keep up, it would seem by today’s standards. We don’t know for sure how long Adam was the only man before Yehwah created Eve, but we know that after Adam was created, he became part of the process.Yehwah got him involved right from the get go. One of his jobs was in naming all the wild animals. We know there are and were a lot of animals so, it took some time for Adam to name them all. For those with any sort of work ethic and appreciation, imagine the sense of ownership and being a part of this new world. Adam was also tasked with caring for the Garden of Eden. What was Eve doing?

Not to pick on Eve, but consider that maybe Eve was given all the comforts of home. She was, after all, created as a companion for Adam. If we might subscribe to the theory that Eve was more easily tempted by that evil serpent because she wasn’t part of the process, lacking in a fundamental knowledge and appreciation of what was being done, then surely it should be readily acceptable to think that after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the “sin” became knowledge that being given the products without the process was not a good thing.

If this was one of the first acts of sin man committed, surely that same sin was passed on and embellished for every evil rotten purpose man could think of.

If you tend to agree with this idea of being spoiled rotten due to being left out of the process, you are probably old enough to know the difference. Just how vast and destructive is this wayward act of receiving handouts instead of earning them, some 6,000 years later?

I was reading an article on the Sultan Knish website, written by Daniel Greenfield, castigating Muslims who have immigrated to Sweden for burning cars as part of their protests. Greenfield asks why anyone would want to become part of a culture that, “makes you so weak and impotent that anyone can come and take what belongs to you?” He also describes the result of Western culture as, “the outcome of a historical process that is hard to explain to people who were never part of the process.”

There is an obvious clash of cultures that are separated by vast amounts of time, where one society sits on the cutting edge of technology (not necessarily better) and another that appears to the Cutting Edge as though it was mired two centuries behind “the times” – not necessarily better or worse either.

Perhaps some might remember when the United States took it upon themselves to invade Iraq “because there were weapons of mass destruction.” Bandied around in the mass propaganda establishments were brief discussions of how the Iraqi people would act and react if and when the U.S. forced it’s democratic ideals of “freedom” onto a people that had no experience in living in much of any degree of freedom. By the way, how is that giant culture clash proceeding?

At the end of his article, writer Greenfield states, “The Western ideal has been reduced to a personal technocratic utopia built on efficiency and it has collided in the night with an Eastern ideal of the clan and a theocratic utopia built on total purity.”

Perhaps the difference between myself and Greenfield is he might see this as the forcing together of cultures by happenstance and the misguidance of poor and biased political ideals. I see it as a planned event. One must understand the entire scope of this “planned event” in order to be able to grasp the true clash, much of which is false. It is people’s manipulated perception of things that causes many of the problems we face.

But then again, the author does describe the migration of the “Western Ideal” as being reduced to a “personal technocratic utopia,” as being something of less value. I agree, however, it is my opinion that most of Western culture embraces their personal technocratic utopia that has been forced upon them at such a rapid pace if makes impulse shopping look like child’s play. Oh, the addiction of cellphones and social media – the beast’s most powerful and progress tool for culture identity destruction that exists today. What will be next?

In 1970, world purveyor of evil, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his book, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” that, “Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.”

Some have come to see Brzezinski as some kind of prophet, but I wonder how can one be a prophet that creates so much they can control the outcome? It’s a bit like what the technetronic era has turned scientific research into – outcome bases Romance Biology and Voodoo Science. Few are aware of this event but have been programmed to enjoy its perceived rewards.

Recall that just recently I wrote about Brzezinski’s daughter Mika telling the world it was the job of Media to tell people what they SHOULD be hearing and seeing. She should know this to be true because I am sure she understands her father’s role in all of this planned division of cultures.

Dr. John Coleman has written many books on the topics of media, propaganda and the planned control of the masses. It is not merely coincidence that about the time Brzesinski was writing his book, organizations like the Tavistock Institute on Human Relations and their cloned global associates, deliberately and systematically, took control over all media and education in order that one day many in the world would see Muslims burning cars in Sweden and write about how cultures clash and there is no way that two or more cultures can exist together.

The controlled mass media has been a participant in the deliberate creation of the technocratic/technetronic society of Western Culture, if for no other reason than to severely collide with tribal Eastern theocratic idealism – to name but one example. This, of course, was enhanced greatly due to planned, worldwide immigration. We must remember too that all worldwide immigration issues are and have been the product of the Vatican. The only hope to their future is that one culture remains uneducated and poor and the other so ignorant, void of the process and full of the products, they know not what they do and will have no learned appreciation and respect, let alone any willingness to work hard and fight to keep it.

The ultimate goal of the Ruling Establishments (they are the Ruling Establishment because they rule. It’s all part of their posterity, of which the common man is ignorant of) is to own and control everything. This includes all natural and man-made resources. When the time comes, all that will be needed is a comparatively small number of slaves to provide for the posterity. Where are you?

I can think of no better way to move along this evil goal than to provide the young all the products they “need,” while avoiding any of the processes that grow knowledge, appreciation and understanding.

Planned dysfunction!

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

RMEF to Launch Next Generation in Media for All Things Elk

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is excited to introduce the Elk Network, a new online media platform that will serve as a complete source of information for all things elk and elk country.

“This online digital platform is several years in the making,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “It is specifically designed to be clean, user-friendly and to mirror social media functionality through a scrolling news feed and the ability to discuss each topic. Our goal with this is to continue to innovate the ways that RMEF creates outbound messaging. It will focus on highly visual and consumable content through a mobile-responsive platform making for effective viewing on any sized screen, anywhere.”

RMEF will officially launch the Elk Network at noon (MST) on Friday, March 3 at elknetwork.com. You can visit the site now to view a video overview of the Elk Network.

“We intend for this to be the place to go for people who are seeking information on elk and elk hunting, as well as anything related to elk country. The Elk Network will also feature recipes, RMEF’s on-the-ground conservation and mission work, entire episodes from past seasons of RMEF Team Elk, as well as other original productions. We are also excited that it will also offer sportsmen and women the opportunity to contribute their own photos, videos and stories,” added Decker.

With a rapidly growing social media presence, RMEF surpassed 500,000 Facebook likes this past weekend. In 2016, RMEF managed to reach more than 24 million people with its #Hunting Is Conservation campaign alone.

Share

There is NO FAKE NEWS! Nothing to See Here. Move Along

Share

WaPo Reporter: “It Didn’t Look Loaded”

“When I got to the ER, I had a swollen face, metal-foil confetti in my hair and a faint odor of gun smoke. Finally, the doctor could see me.

“I shot myself in the eye with a glitter gun,” I said. I showed him the Party Popper, which I had brought with me, in case he wanted to send it off to the National Institute of Morons for further study.

I got home from the hospital with a scratched cornea and a tube of eye ointment.”<<<Read More>>>

Share