November 22, 2019

Senate Passes Important Sportsmen and Conservation Legislation

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recognized the U.S. Senate for approving a comprehensive energy package that includes permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) as well as important provisions that benefit conservation, wildlife, sportsmen and women.

“We are grateful that Senators recognized LWCF is a vital conservation program that warranted permanent reauthorization,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Advancing part of the sportsmen package will also help hunters, anglers and shooters who use our federal lands. We are particularly pleased to see the bill also includes a change to the Equal Access to Justice Act, requiring reporting of decisions and awards of attorney fees. This statute has been abused by groups to stop land management projects while collecting attorney fees paid by taxpayers to sue the federal government.”

RMEF remains a longtime advocate for permanent reauthorization of LWCF which uses revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling to support the conservation of America’s lands and waters. It also provides funding to permanently protect and provide public access to important habitat for elk and other wildlife. To date, RMEF utilized more than $85 million in LWCF funding across 62 projects in ten different states in partnership with federal agencies to protect, conserve and open access to some of the nation’s most vital elk country. The 50 year-old program expired last September but was temporarily reauthorized by Congress in December.

The bill also includes several components of the bipartisan sportsmen legislative package passed by House of Representatives in February which directs federal agencies to enhance and increase public access for hunting, fishing and shooting on federal lands.

“While the Senate passed a number of provisions beneficial to sportsmen and women, it missed a tremendous opportunity regarding predator management. The sportsmen package passed by the House included language to restore state management of wolves in Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. There is simply no reason to prevent these states from managing these predators when they are fully recovered and flourishing.”

The Senate’s energy bill will now go to a conference committee where members will iron out differences between the versions passed by the House and Senate.

Share

Critical Thinking on Climate Change

Empirical Evidence to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies – September 4, 2014

Introduction:

When this report was first introduced in July of 2013, a number of important assertions were being made in the public forum, particularly on Capitol Hill, that were wholly factually and scientifically inaccurate. The original version of the report, as well as the expert scientific testimony provided to Congress in the interim, was meant to be helpful in limiting some of the more egregious claims that were being perpetuated. Unfortunately, much of the public discourse on important issues related to climate science has devolved into name-calling, including terminology such as “denier” or “dirty denier.”1 Both have connotations which frequent use of is counter-productive to an honest public discussion involving a matter of such incredible scientific and economic importance. No scientific discussion that requires precision, particularly when it relates to issues as complex as climate science, should utilize means to limit debate and understanding when critical evaluation is necessary.

Additional events that have transpired since the first version of this report was introduced clarify the need for providing some basic level scientific facts that are important to understanding carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in our environment. Certain media figures have gone so far as to try and discredit the basic science of photosynthesis2 and our understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic CO2. Such mischaracterization does an additional disservice to the understanding of this important greenhouse gas and related policy making.

To rectify some of the challenges in ensuring additional factors based on empirical evidence were understood, this report has been updated to include the following:

1. A new section has been added on the benefits of CO2.
2. Wildfires and forestry management have garnered additional public attention of late, and so was split into its own section with additional information.
3. A new section has been added on the impacts European countries have seen as a result of their climate regulations.
4. A new section has been added on Polar Bear populations and claims of mass extinctions.
5. Nearly all sections have been updated with new information.
6. An addendum was added to provide examples of how the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment report ignores critical scientific evidence when submitted by top researchers and scientists.

Four former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrators testified before the EPW Committee in 2014 and provided important answers to questions for the record as it relates to basic CO2 science, economics, and EPA regulations:<<<Read Full Report>>>

Share

U.S. Senate Webpage Wrong on 2A

According to an article found on Breitbart, the U.S. Senate website, on information about the U.S. Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, has it all wrong; probably at least 5 years out of date.

The page in question, found here, says:

Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.

And as the author points out, the District of Columbia v. Heller, Supreme Court case, resolved the question of individual vs. collective and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Supreme Court case, reaffirmed that ruling.

Hmmm! Must be sequestration preventing updating of the website.

Share

Sec. Kerry Will Sign UN Arms Treaty Today

gunandscalesofjusticeBefore there is complete panic in the streets from the Second Amendment advocates, please realize that Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature on an arms treaty with the UN is not “the supreme law of the land.” All treaties MUST be ratified by the United States Senate and signed by the president.

Having said that, there is trouble on the horizon. It was back last April, shortly after the announcement that the United States would sign on to the newest version of a UN arms treaty, that I wrote:

Whether it’s the Obama Administration or the next or next, they will succeed in getting guns away from the American population. Historical odds are stacked heavily in favor of that happening. I will repeat myself one more time and say that the millions and millions of guns owned by a few million U.S. citizens is the only and last deterrent keeping us away from total despotic and tyrannical rule.

Historically I have heard the naysayers stating that we will never lose our right to keep and bear arms and yet the same naysayers have not followed the history about guns and rights. They fail to see or admit that those rights are slowly but surely being eaten away at and in time will disappear.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty defines what kind of weaponry will be included that will be tightly “controlled” by the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Beginning on Page 4 of the treaty, Article 2, “Scope”, Section 1, the last item on the list is, “Small Arms and Light Weapons.”

So, yes, this treaty will involve the regulation by the UNODA of the buying and selling of the guns and ammunition many Americans enjoy and possess. Of course the United Nations and the totalitarian leaders of our government are making every effort to exploit events like Syria and Kenya to lie to people and tell them that if such a treaty was in effect, these events wouldn’t happen. No, seriously, they are.

Many that are in opposition to this treaty say that if the U.S. ratifies this treaty, we would be required to devise some kind of tracking system of all our weapons, including private ownership. On Page 5 of the Treaty, Article 3, “Ammunition/Munitions” it reads:

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.

How do you suppose the United States of America would devise a “national control system?” I can only imagine and I’ll leave that up to you.

However, think globally. All signatories of this Treaty must abide by the same rules. I would then assume that some of our favorite foreign-made guns and ammunition will be strictly regulated by the UNODA.

As anyone can imagine, the Treaty is a legal nightmare, intentionally left vague and confusing in order that self interpretation can result. It is fool’s play to think otherwise. I would, however, like to point out one part of Article 7, “Export and Export Assessment”, (1). Please go read it. It attempts to define certain “relevant factors” that would prohibit the export of ammunition/munitions. These “relevant factors” are deliberately written in order that they can be applied to any condition they deem necessary.

The big question now becomes will the U.S. Senate ratify this treaty? We know Obama would eagerly sign his name to it should the Senate approve. I don’t have a crystal ball but I think I can do a pretty decent job of briefly explaining, based on past history, what will go down.

If this newest arms treaty does not pass muster in the Senate, the events leading up to a vote and all subsequent arms treaty votes in the future, will lead to the eventual disarmament of American citizens; piece by piece. It seems that with each passing Senate vote on UN arms, the margin between those for and against, continues to shrink.

A stand alone disarmament treaty would take decades to pass and thus, like we see repeatedly in our own Houses of Congress, laws get stuffed in and among other bills. A favorite seems to be budget bills. For example, at present Congress is debating about whether to pass a bill to allow the U.S. Government to keep spending money it doesn’t have. In order to get the number of votes necessary to pass, crooked and thieving back room deals are made. The deals often get through with the budget bill and very few, if any, Americans are aware that it happened. This is probably how a disarmament treaty will get passed by the Senate.

With a dumbing down and further indoctrination of the American people, members of Congress will lose sight of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Already we hear political leaders saying that signing this treaty will not effect the right of the American people to keep and bears arms. That’s a lie because it is a limiting of rights.

But with each event of arms treaty proposals, a certain amount of pressure is put on governments, congresses and the citizenry at large to give in, at least some, on giving up the right to keep and bear arms. This is historical, as every day we witness limits on all of our rights. Guns are no different and in some ways might lead the way in that regard.

The U.S. Senate may or may not pass this treaty, but it will come. One way or another we will be disarmed. A one world government cannot succeed so long as U.S. citizens are armed.

Please don’t be fooled into thinking that should the Senate not agree to this treaty, we are out of the woods. The mere act of Secretary of State John Kerry signing this UN Treaty, is an act that promises that the United States will do everything it can to adhere to the terms of this treaty EVEN IF THE SENATE FAILS TO RATIFY.

Mid-term elections are just around the corner. It would be good advice for me to encourage you to call or write your senator and tell them the U.S. in not interested in giving up its sovereignty and being ruled by the United Nations.

Or you can continue to live the lie.

Share