September 22, 2019

“Climate Denial”: A Term to Suppress Truth

“Climate denial” — with all its Freudian overtones — has moved to the center ring of the linguistic fight over global warming. “Climate change has always been a kind of a framing war,” author and activist George Marshall said. “If you can get out there and you can get your language inserted into the discourse, it’s your ideas that dominate.” Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to “climate denier” in a 2003 op-ed. They wanted the label to sting. It did. And it still does.

“In the end, if you win the frame war, your opponents back off and they start using your language,” he said. “And then you’ve won.”

Source: CLIMATE: There’s no denying this label packs a political punch — Friday, May 15, 2015 — www.eenews.net

Share

Deja Vu All Over Again: Historic Wellington House Ignorance and Propaganda BS

It has been said that if we don’t learn history we are doomed to repeat it. This is true except the vast majority of American Society believes they have been taught actual history – and they have except! Except that what they have been taught are enough lies designed to mislead a society for sinister purposes. This is called propagandizing. It is not new but we are convinced that the U.S. does not engage in false news reporting but other countries, like Russia, do.

The Wellington House was established at the onset of World War I. The purpose: to counter the massive and effective propaganda machine of the Germans. Lost in history are the facts about propaganda. Wellington House included an American writer, among other “Western” journalists, writers and experts on propaganda use. It’s purpose was to convince America, Great Britain and their allies to support the war effort. Do you think it ended in Britain and the U.S. after WWI?

Fast forward, and with a bit of research, we discover that the U.S. Congress amended the laws governing media lies to the public and made it a legal enterprise. But even without such an amendment, are we so smug and deliberately made blind that we cannot believe our own government, which through certain channels, controls all mainstream media, does not and will not propagandize their own people? And so it goes. But as I often say, “Don’t go look.”

Below are two statements. One is an actual statement made and published in the Wall Street Journal by a republican member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The other has had a five words replaced (one removed). My question is, which one of these statements is real AND which one of these statements is true?

“Vladimir Putin has a secret army. It’s an army of thousands of “trolls,” TV anchors and others who work day and night spreading anti-American propaganda on the Internet, airwaves and newspapers throughout Russia and the world. Mr. Putin uses these misinformation warriors to destabilize his neighbors and control parts of Ukraine. This force may be more dangerous than any military, because no artillery can stop their lies from spreading and undermining U.S. security interests in Europe.”

“Barack Obama has a secret army. It’s an army of thousands of “trolls,” TV anchors and others who work day and night spreading anti-American propaganda on the Internet, airwaves and newspapers throughout the United States and the world. Mr. Obama uses these misinformation warriors to destabilize his neighbors and control parts of the Middle East. This force may be more dangerous than any military, because no artillery can stop their lies from spreading and undermining security interests in Europe.”

Share

Abdullah The Hero? Or Just Another Fake ISIS Bombing?

I refuse to play stupid in this as well as blind. Ever since the Obama Administration began supposedly bombing ISIS targets, the only pictures or videos the people have been able to see, shows vacant lots and empty buildings being bombed; never anybody around or even motor vehicles parked or moving about. Why is that? ISIS tipped off, or were they all just out to Dunkin’ Donuts for coffee when the bombing started? Maybe the whole thing is an orchestrated fake. Wouldn’t be the first time.

Probably previous administrations put up the same kind of fake pictures and I just wasn’t paying attention.

And now, Neocons and fascist war mongers are bringing down the roof over Jordan’s King Abdullah for bombing ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. The U.S. Pentagon says Jordan is lying about bombing in Iraq. I say they all lie. I say the videos that some main stream news outlets are showing on TV are fake. There’s never anybody home and there’s never cars and trucks around or any movement at all. The bombs appear to be just blowing up empty buildings.

Below is a video I found on Youtube but it’s a video containing still pictures, some of which might be supposed ISIS targets the Jordanians have bombed…maybe. The rest is just propaganda.

The cries go out demanding Obama ask Congress to declare war. Odd, I didn’t think the president needed to ask. Let’s get into it. Let’s get ready to rumble. The propaganda on all sides is stirring the masses and growing the hatred. Before you agree to have somebody’s child go shoot and kill other human beings, ask yourself if you really believe the nonsense you are being spoon fed. If you do, then get your gun and do the killing yourself. Don’t send someone else’s kid to do your nasty work.

Share

Evidently Not All Americans Are As Stupid

“A key architect of Obamacare has been caught openly boasting about taking advantage of, what he calls, “the stupidity of the American voter.”

MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber spoke at a panel on October 17 on the political hurdles Obamacare faced in 2009-10. The video was unearthed and posted on Youtube by American Commitment.

Gruber was instrumental in crafting the legislation that was signed into law in March 2010.

In the midst of his explanation, Gruber bragged about the multiple deceptions the Obama White House perpetrated on the American people:”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Presidential Propagandizing: What is “Climate-Resilience Considerations?”

*Editor’s Note* – In 2013, when Congress removed the ban on government to lie to the American people, it is the following Executive Order considering fraudulent, non scientific, global warming, which epitomizes exactly why the president of the United States needs to lie to the people. The preamble to this Executive Order, along with Section 1, is 100% propaganda. The rest is fiction.

It’s all quite disgusting!

CLIMATE-RESILIENT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to safeguard security and economic growth, protect the sustainability and long-term durability of U.S. development work in vulnerable countries, and promote sound decisionmaking and risk management, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change. Even with increased efforts to curb these emissions, we must prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The adverse impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, increases in temperatures, more frequent extreme precipitation and heat events, more severe droughts, and increased wildfire activity, along with other impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, such as ocean acidification, threaten to roll back decades of progress in reducing poverty and improving economic growth in vulnerable countries, compromise the effectiveness and resilience of U.S. development assistance, degrade security, and risk intranational and international conflict over resources.

Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 2009 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), and Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change), established a strong foundation for coordinated and consistent action to incorporate climate-resilience considerations into policies and procedures throughout the Federal Government. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) with international development programs must now build upon the recent progress made pursuant to these orders by systematically factoring climate-resilience considerations into international development strategies, planning, programming, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities.

This order requires the integration of climate-resilience considerations into all United States international development work to the extent permitted by law. Dedicated U.S. climate-change adaptation funds are critical to managing the risks posed by climate-change impacts in vulnerable countries. Coping with the magnitude of the consequences of accelerating climate change also requires enhanced efforts across the Federal Government’s broader international development work. Consideration of current and future climate-change impacts will improve the resilience of the Federal Government’s broader international development programs, projects, investments, overseas facilities, and related funding decisions. The United States will also promote a similar approach among relevant multilateral entities in which it participates.

By taking these steps and more fully considering current and future climate-change impacts, the United States will foster better decision-making processes and risk-management approaches, ensure the effectiveness of U.S. investments, and assist other countries in integrating climate-resilience considerations into their own development planning and implementation. Collectively, these efforts will help to better optimize broader international development work and lead to enhanced global preparedness for and resilience to climate change.

The international climate-resilience actions required by this order complement efforts by the Federal Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home and globally. The more greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, the less need there will be to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.

Sec. 2. Incorporating Climate Resilience into International Development. (a) Agencies with direct international development programs and investments shall:

(i) incorporate climate-resilience considerations into decisionmaking by:

(A) assessing and evaluating climate-related risks to and vulnerabilities in agency strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, overseas facilities, and related funding decisions, using best-available climate-change data, tools, and information, including those identified or developed pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this order; and

(B) as appropriate, adjusting strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, based on such assessments and evaluations;

(ii) collaborate with other agencies to share knowledge, data, tools, information, frameworks, and lessons learned in incorporating climate-resilience considerations into agency strategy, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities;

(iii) work with other countries, as appropriate, to identify climate risks and incorporate climate-resilience considerations into their international development assistance efforts;

(iv) when determining how to use resources, support efforts of vulnerable countries to integrate climate-resilience considerations into national, regional, and sectoral development planning and action; and

(v) monitor progress in integrating and promoting climate-resilient development considerations as required by this subsection.

(b) Agencies that participate in multilateral entities and other agencies with representation in multilateral development entities, including multilateral development banks and United Nations organizations, shall, as appropriate:

(i) work to encourage multilateral entities to:

(A) assess and evaluate climate-related risks to and vulnerabilities in their strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, using best-available climate-change data, tools, and information; and

(B) adjust their strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, as appropriate, based on such assessments and evaluations;

(ii) collaborate with multilateral entities and share with agencies and other stakeholders knowledge, data, tools, information, frameworks, and lessons learned from the multilateral entities in incorporating climate-resilience considerations into strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions;

(iii) encourage multilateral entities to support efforts of vulnerable countries to integrate climate-resilience considerations into national, regional, and sectoral development planning and action; and

(iv) monitor the efforts of multilateral entities in integrating climate-resilient development considerations as encouraged by this order.

Sec. 3. Enhancing Data, Tools, and Information for Climate-Resilient International Development. Agencies with direct international development programs and investments and those that participate in multilateral entities shall work together with science and security agencies and entities, through the Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development established in section 4 of this order, to identify and develop, as appropriate, data, decision-support tools, and information to allow the screening for and incorporation of considerations of climate-change risks and vulnerabilities, as appropriate, in strategies, plans, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities. In addition, such agencies shall coordinate efforts, including those undertaken pursuant to Executive Order 13653, to deliver information on climate-change impacts and make data, tools, and information available to decisionmakers in other countries, so as to build their capacity as information providers and users. United States participants in relevant multilateral entities shall share this information with the respective multilateral entity, as appropriate.

Sec. 4. Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development. (a) Establishment. There is established a Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development (Working Group) of the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Council) established by Executive Order 13653.

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, or their designees, shall co-chair the Working Group. Agencies with direct international development programs and investments, agencies that participate in multilateral entities, and science and security agencies and entities shall designate a representative from their respective agencies or entities to participate in the Working Group. Representatives from other agencies or entities may participate in the Working Group as determined by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Mission and Function.

(i) The Working Group shall:

(A) develop, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, guidelines for integrating considerations of climate-change risks and climate resilience into agency strategies, plans, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities;

(B) assess and identify, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, existing climate-change data, tools, and information, as described in section 3 of this order, to help agencies assess climate risks and make decisions that incorporate climate-resilience considerations, such as through project screening. To the extent the Working Group identifies needs for new data, tools, and information, it shall work with relevant science and security agencies and entities to advance their development, as appropriate;

(C) identify approaches for adjusting strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, to respond to the findings of climate-risk assessments;

(D) facilitate the exchange of knowledge, data, tools, information, frameworks, and lessons learned in assessing climate risks to and incorporating climate-resilience considerations into strategies, planning, programs, projects, investments, and related funding decisions, including the planning for and management of overseas facilities, of agencies with direct international development programs and investments, including efforts referenced in section 3 of this order;

(E) work through existing channels to share best practices developed by the Working Group with other donor countries and multilateral entities to facilitate advancement of climate-resilient development policies;

(F) promote interagency collaboration, including through joint training; and

(G) develop, for agencies with direct international development programs and investments, methods for tracking and reporting on Federal Government progress in institutionalizing more climate-resilient development approaches, including performance metrics.

(ii) The Co-Chairs of the Council may designate additional Co-Chairs of the Working Group. The Co-Chairs of the Working Group may establish sub-working groups, as appropriate.

Sec. 5. Implementation and Reporting of Progress. (a) Implementation. To promote sustained focus on implementation, both at agency headquarters and in the field, the Working Group shall:

(i) establish a 2-year timeline, divided into 6-month intervals, to implement section 4(b)(i) of this order, setting forth specific goals to be accomplished and milestones to be achieved; and

(ii) analyze, at least annually, the Federal Government’s progress in implementing this order and provide recommendations for priority areas for further implementation to the Council, Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other agencies, offices, and entities, as appropriate.

(b) Reporting.

(i) Agencies with direct international development programs and investments shall report on and track progress in achieving the requirements identified in section 2(a) of this order, including accomplished and planned milestones, through the Federal Agency Planning process set forth in section 5 of Executive Order 13653. Once the Working Group has developed metrics and methodologies as required by section 4(b)(i)(G) of this order, agency reporting shall include an estimation of the proportion of each agency’s direct international development programs and investments for which climate-risk assessments have been conducted, as well as an estimation of the proportion of the programs and investments for which climate risk was identified and acted upon.

(ii) Agencies that participate in multilateral entities shall report on the efforts of multilateral entities in integrating climate-resilient development considerations into their operations through the Federal Agency Planning process set forth in section 5 of Executive Order 13653. Where more than one agency is involved in the U.S. Government’s participation in a multilateral entity, the lead agency for such participation shall be responsible for reporting, in coordination with the other agencies involved.

Sec. 6. Climate-Change Mitigation. As agencies incorporate climate-resilience considerations into international development work, they shall continue seeking opportunities to help international partners promote sustainable low-emissions development. The Federal Government has greatly increased the number and variety of international development initiatives focused on climate-change mitigation, including programs to promote clean energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable land-use and forestry practices, as well as partnerships with more than two dozen countries to formulate and implement sustainable low-emissions development strategies. Within 1 year of the date of this order, and building on the full range of efforts the United States has undertaken to date, the National Security Council shall convene relevant agencies and entities to explore further mitigation opportunities in broader U.S. international development work and develop recommendations for further action.

Sec. 7. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) “Adaptation” has the meaning provided in section 8(b) of Executive Order 13653: adjustment in natural or human systems in anticipation of or response to a changing environment in a way that effectively uses beneficial opportunities or reduces negative effects;

(b) “Direct international development programs and investments” refers to:

(i) bilateral, regional, and multilateral international development programs and investments over which agencies have primary programmatic and financial management responsibilities; or

(ii) the extension of official financing by agencies bilaterally to private sector investors to support international development;

(c) “Climate-change mitigation” refers to actions that reduce or enhance removals of greenhouse gas emissions;

(d) “Resilience” has the meaning provided in section 8(c) of Executive Order 13653: the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions;

(e) “Agencies with direct international development programs and investments” means the Department of State, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, United States Agency for International Development, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, United States Trade and Development Agency, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs;

(f) “Science and security agencies and entities” means the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United States Global Change Research Program, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs; and

(g) “Agencies that participate in multilateral entities” means the Department of the Treasury, Department of State, and other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by the Working Group Co-Chairs.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements and applicable U.S. law, and shall be subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order 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.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 23, 2014.

Share

Experience Vs. Romance Biology

A letter writer from Morristown, New Jersey, has a piece in MyCentralJersey.com in which he reluctantly says that the recent attack by a black bear on a Rutgers University student in a park/preserve, was predictable. He claims he has sent “at least” 12 letters since 2007 warning that this event would occur under present bear policy.

Bob Guinter brings up a few good points. The first is in response to a person from the Sierra Club continuing to claim that black bears are docile, timid and afraid of humans.

…after spending over 10,000 hours in the North woods of Maine at my uncle’s wilderness cabin…, My experience is different. Black bears are unpredictable and they are both scavengers and predators as circumstances allow. Perhaps those who believe they are docile and afraid of people simply choose to ignore behaviors they exhibit commonly in their indigenous environment where they are at the top of the food chain.

The second point is in response to a claim that bears become aggressive, slowly over time, because they learn that humans are a source for food.

During my time of hiking and fishing the East Branch of the Penobscot River, it was a rare event to see another human; sometimes not seeing anyone outside of camp for weeks at a time. Yet bear encounters with them exhibiting aggressive behavior toward humans were common. There, they only seemed afraid of anything in the fall when the hunting-dogs were running.

This is perhaps a very good example of romance biology versus actual experience. In this day and age where real science has been shown the door and replaced with computer models and romantic theories, rooted in nonsensical idealism, what we are seeing here is the fruit of that planting.

The masses of people have been propagandized. Some may think propaganda a harsh term in this instance but when you consider that the definition states that it’s bad information being used to promote a cause or belief, it surely fits nicely. The problem here is that this propagandizing has been taking place at all levels of society for a very long time. The result is too many people have never been taught the real truth. Nobody wants to admit they were lied to and that what they believe is false. It’s like admitting a weakness, like alcoholism or drug addiction.

The real loser in all of this nonsense of “new understandings” is the beneficial-to-all scientific community. A true scientific method involves the advancement of a hypothesis. Real scientists then choose to discover if such a hypothesis holds validity. Changes to the hypothesis begin and over time, what was once a mere theory, begins to have credibility – not the lie we have been fed that “the science is settled.” Such a statement, as has been used with climate change, is completely dishonest and borders on criminal.

Today’s new science, called by some “scientism” creates computer models based on an ideology or political agenda. Money is injected and what once was a tried system of peer review, has become a support system propped up with money and promises to arrive at a desired outcome.

Unfortunately for all of us, we are left having to decide who we should believe. The result being this divide pitting totalitarian-minded people, armed with propaganda, attempting to force the rest of society to follow their ideological beliefs, through such things as voter referendums. How does this at all resemble a credible scientific process?

In the letter written that I’ve linked to above, the writer wants to know how the person with the Sierra Club can state that, “bears are usually docile and are more afraid of people than we are of them.” He asks, “How does he know?” And therein lies the difference between knowledge and understanding, through real experience, and fabricated propaganda being used to promote an agenda.

It’s really not all the far away from the story of the two guys who had hiked back into the wilderness to do some fishing and are being chased out of the woods by an attacking bear. One man says, “I don’t think I can outrun this bear!” The other man replies, “I know I can’t. I just need to outrun you.”

Which man is dealing with truth?

EBranchPenobscot

Share

Wolves in Greece: Or More Accurately a Changing of Narrative About Wolves

*Editor’s Note:* Earlier today I posted a story written by James Beers about how efforts are underway in Finland to, “facilitate a change in attitudes” toward wolves. Recently here in the United States, the lovers of predators met in Yellowstone National Park. Among their list of goals, we find the need to change the way in which people and wildlife managers view and implement wildlife management. Today, we find below another outcome-based study all geared toward changing attitudes and nothing to do with the scientific management of large predators, like wolves, and wildlife in general. This shifting paradigm, brought on by “change agents” is nothing knew and in the past its “soft” approach has basically gone unnoticed. With the majority of people worldwide sufficiently brainwashed and turned into non thinking robots, what is left is merely to “change the attitudes” of those that don’t quietly fall in line with the government narrative. This, of course, is not happenstance, but an orchestrated event in which the power brokers, the ruling elite, have created and/or discovered a remarkable tool in which they can effectively prey upon non thinkers who worship and adore their animals in order to fulfill their objectives of human control along with the destruction of rights and complete slavery. We should never view such activities as harmless actions by a bunch of idiots. Perhaps there are ample “useful idiots” and “True Believers” to carry out the plan, but the Planners know exactly what they are doing and have become experts at it.

Abstract
The protection of the former outlaw wolf (Canis lupus) has become a conflicting issue in regions of Central and Northern Greece the last years. The population of the wolf in rural areas has been a trouble for livestock breeders in those areas due to the attacks on their herds. Therefore they are important actors in the conflict
related to the protection of the wolf. The reasons they emerge and the ways those conflicts should be resolved spot the light on the socio-political aspect of the situation. The case of the presence of the wolf in two regions in Central Greece and its perceptions from people relate d to animal husbandry is the topic of this study. Employing the structural approach of the theoretical framework of the Social Representations, it was concluded that negative characteristics of the wolf rooted in the local history and culture are connected with the included in the study practices and attitudes breeders and veterinarians have towards wolves in the region. Narratives about secret releases of wolf are dominant and they reveal issues mainly related to distrust towards NGO’s and public services and the feeling of marginalization is strong, while acts of illegal hunting appear to be consequent practice which can be interpreted as a political action.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Crimes of Wolf Passion and Ignorance

HumanHatredLet’s set the standard for this article right out of the starting gate. It is my opinion that poaching (defined as illegal taking) of game is a crime. I do not endorse or make excuses for poaching for anyone. And as much as I would condemn a poacher for their actions, I will equally condemn an ignorant, emotionally intoxicated fool who, especially in a position of authority, opens their mouth and makes statements that are so ignorant they should never be allowed to speak in any official capacity.

Found in The Republic, is a quote from Idaho Department of Fish and Game conservation officer George Fischer about poaching. He says:

“It’s real easy for people to blow a gasket about wolf predation,” said Idaho Fish and Game District Conservation Officer George Fischer. “They are very passionate about it, they are very irate about it and they are livid about it. Yet there is a two-legged wolf out there that is probably killing as many or more than wolves. Wolves are causing an impact, there is no doubt about it; I don’t want to downplay that at all, but two-legged wolves are probably killing more or stealing more game than wolves. That is the shock-and-awe message.”

According to this same article “officials” are estimating that in all of Idaho in one year, 600 elk, 80 moose, 260 mule deer and 1,000 whitetail deer are taken illegally. That’s 1,940 wild ungulates. So, let’s use “official” claims to see if Fischer’s statement that humans are poaching more animals than wolves is true.

It’s difficult to shoot a moving target, as that is the case with trying to determine how many wolves are in Idaho. However, continuing to use “official” data, according to the 2013 “official” Status of Elk and Wolves Reports, July 2013, at the end of year 2012 Idaho had nearly 1,600 wolves (that figure is officially declared as a minimum estimate).

According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement – 1994, Page 38 – Chapter 3, “Environmental Consequences”, Cumulative Effects Analysis, the FEIS states that: “One hundred wolves are predicted to kill about 1,650 ungulates per year.” Since 1994, I have never laid eyes on any official report of that number decreasing but I have seen several that places the number of ungulates killed per year, per wolf higher than 16.5.

So, for the sake of argument and to substantiate or disprove claims that poachers do more damage than wolves, let’s stick with “official” data and claims. Let’s take the “nearly 1,600 wolves” in Idaho estimate and round it down to 1,500. Let’s keep the number of ungulates killed by wolves per year at 16.5. Doing the math we easily see that wolves kill an estimated 24,750 ungulates per year in Idaho.

Let’s look at that again. George Fischer, of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, who appears to love wolves more than he hates humans, said that poachers illegally kill 1,940 ungulates a year in Idaho. My math is a bit fuzzy here but I think that’s like less than one tenth of one percent.

There are so many sayings about what people should do before they open their mouths. The one that quickly comes to mind is the one about it being better to make people wonder how stupid you are than to speak and remove all doubt.

It’s a shame really, because nobody approves of poaching game. What’s sad is an official with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, exemplifying such anger and hatred toward the human species in an attempt to protect a wild animal.

Damn we got our priorities all screwed up!

Share

Wolf Brainwashing Propaganda for Kids

Below is the cover of Time for Kids, November 8, 2013, Vol. 4, No.9, Edition 3-4. The cover headline asks, “Are Gray Wolves Safe?” I want to ask, “Safe from what?” or better yet, my first impression upon seeing the cover was, are gray wolves “safe” for kids to be around? After all, do kids really care all that much about whether humans are going to not make wolves “safe?” Aren’t kids more concerned about whether they are safe from wolves?

But we are talking brainwashing propaganda! This garbage is given to kids in public schools all across America and that should nauseate all of us but we are brainwashed too.

So what about the article?

The article is very short and written with obvious bias, full of terrible misleading and non factual information. But what would we expect from propaganda, especially when it comes to wolves?

The article carries the name of Brenda Iasevoli as the author and relies upon information about wolves from only two people. Who? First is Dan Ashe, head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He told the author, “We’ve exceeded our recovery goals[for wolves].” And as far as any discussions or debates about whether “gray wolves are safe,” Time for Kids went to none other than that reliable source for everything gray wolves, Suzanne Stone from Defenders of Wildlife.

Need I say anymore?

TimeKids

Share

The Most Astonishing Display of Mental Drool Over Wolves

It it simply amazing that one person can be this ignorant, yes intellectually short-changed. What’s near criminal is that over a million people have viewed this utter nonsense.

Share