Do “Urbanized” Bears Live Different From “Wild” Bears?

The Wildlife Conservation Society is claiming that in a study they conducted, urbanized black bears, “weigh more, get pregnant at a younger age, and are more likely to die violent deaths”. The study involved tracking 12 so-called “urbanized” bears living around the Lake Tahoe, Nevada area for 10 years. They also tracked 10 so-called “wildland” bears in what the Science Daily described as, “outlying wild areas”.

According to what the WCS is saying, the bears in the Lake Tahoe area weighed 30% more than wildland bears, got pregnant earlier and died younger, mostly getting run over by cars.

Before we go getting out the treadmill, birth control pills and bear whistles for our cars, we need to put the study into perspective. First, how representative of the bear population is studying 12 Lake Tahoe bears and 10 area bears? We don’t know. Anytime a wildlife study is done, there are so many variables that need to be considered before any real conclusions can be made.

Secondly, we have no idea why the bears moved from the wildlands to the urban areas. Authors of the study suggested they came for the garbage. It may appear they did but without knowing the real reason they left the wildland area, we can only surmise. We know nothing about the wildland habitat, the availability of food sources, etc. during this time period.

Of course this makes for great media fodder and discussions on forums and blogs but how “scientific” is the study? With the little information made available in this one article, certainly no real conclusions can be made about the differences between the two types of bears.

Another point to make that appears in this article. The author of the article in Science Daily explains about Nevada’s existing bear population.

Right now, populations in Nevada remain steady due to bears immigrating from neighboring California.

To me this leaves unanswered a very important question that seemingly goes unaddressed in this “study”. Why are bears migrating to Nevada from California?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Endangered Species Act Is Now Endangering Our Species

As the courts continue to decide what the Endangered Species Act is for, we have reached a point where it appears now that our wildlife that needs protecting is in eminent danger. Yesterday, Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman, ordered that the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region be placed back under protection and management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That decision and the subsequent ruling of the court I now see as jeopardizing the health and sustainability of our other wildlife and plant species all within specific ecosystems.

Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue”.

The judge did not have to put the wolf back on the endangered list but it appears that he did just because he could. More on that later.

What Judge Friedman is saying in his ruling is that the USFWS has no authority under the ESA to selectively delist only the population of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. In his opening opinion he says this:

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment,” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

In short, Judge Friedman seems to be saying that because in 1978 the federal government opted to list the wolf as either “threatened” or “endangered” everywhere south of the Canadian border, they cannot now chop up wolf population segments in order to remove them from the ESA protection status. He supports this by saying the ESA is ambiguous and finds no previous court rulings otherwise, therefore it doesn’t give the USFWS authority to delist only the Great Lakes population segment of wolves.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 says in reference to a “Distinct Population Segment”:

(16) The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

According to Judge Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS argued that this was the intent of Congress when it developed the ESA. Friedman didn’t buy it.

On the other hand, “deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not appropriate when the agency wrongly believes that [its] interpretation is compelled by Congress.” PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d at 798. As discussed above, it seems clear that FWS erroneously concluded that its interpretation of the ESA was compelled by Congress.

Friedman also tries to explain why the USFWS interpretation is ambiguous.

Because the ESA is ambiguous with respect to the issue at hand, the Court is required to defer to any permissible agency construction under Chevron step two. See Defs.’ Mot. at 13; Defs.’ Opp. at 4. In this case, however, there is no permissible construction to which the Court can defer. The Final Rule and FWS’ papers rely exclusively on a “plain meaning” reading of the ESA which the Court already has rejected. And even assuming that the Court could look elsewhere for an interpretation to which it could defer, there is none in sight. The DPS Policy does not qualify as a construction to which this Court can defer because the DPS Policy does not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court. The purpose of the DPS Policy is to clarify the meaning of the term “distinct population segment” and to set forth criteria for deciding whether a sub-population should be designated as a DPS. It does not address the propriety of simultaneously designating and delisting a DPS within a broader listing, and the Court finds both parties’ arguments to the contrary strained and unpersuasive. Nor may the Court look to the ESA’s implementing regulations for a Chevron-worthy interpretation. Those regulations largely track the statutory provisions discussed in part III.B and, like those statutory provisions, do not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court.

So Judge Friedman remanded the case back to the USFWS for them to provide a definition of “distinct population segment” the court will accept, that then allows the feds to break out segments of wolves or any other species and remove from federal protection.

The second issue with the case was whether or not the wolf in the Western Great Lakes region should be placed back on the ESA. Friedman explains it this way:

The Court agrees with FWS and defendant-intervenors that it is within the Court’s discretion to remand without vacating the Final Rule, but in the context of this case it declines to do so………..Second, while it is true that vacatur will have a palpable regulatory effect – specifically, management responsibility for the western Great Lakes DPS will be reposed in the federal government rather than in the states – the Court concludes that “disruption” is not a substantial concern in this case. Little confusion or inefficiency will result from reinstating a regulatory regime that was in place from 1978 to 2007, particularly given the fact that state and federal wolf management authorities have been working in tandem for years.

Judge Friedman concludes his reasons for placing the wolf back under federal protection by saying he agreed with the plaintiffs that he thinks the ESA prefers to protect the animals. Is it fair then to add to that he, like most others, believe it is better to protect the animals than the rights of the people?

We can argue until we are blue in the face over whether this judge or Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled over the recent return of the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to the ESA, but the problem clearly lies with a faulty Endangered Species Act. Without changes our wildlife is in danger. Why do those so eager to protect the wolf not see that further lack of management of wolves threatens sustainability of other species, species we have spent millions of dollars to protect?

If this ruling remains and USFWS refuses or cannot reverse this decision, much of the U.S is in serious trouble with wildlife management. People have very little faith that the USFWS is looking out for their interest, after all it is another government agency. Many believe they are too scared, too broke and too interested in the efforts of environmentalists to much care about the rights of others. The USFWS has shown us of late their unwillingness to fight to keep the wolf listed in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana by simply walking away and asking the judge to withdraw their request. Why should we think the USFWS is interested in reversing this latest ruling.

The seriousness of this ruling is widespread. We must think beyond wolves. It affects every living species within the borders of our country. If Friedman’s ruling stands, this means that because the federal government declared the gray wolf either threatened or endangered in every state south of Canada, the only way the wolf can ever be removed from ESA listing is when it can do so throughout all of the lower 48 states. We know that can never happen.

Now the danger comes because there is a lessening of the desire to list species that might need so out of fear of the consequences that might follow. This will have an affect on whether the feds desire to protect a species. In short, this is abuse of the ESA, a poor interpretation and the end result is going to be the loss of some wildlife to protect another. It’s ridiculous.

The USFWS needs now to rethink any actions pertaining to other species. It needs to clearly define any and all historic species habitat out of fear it will wrongfully place a region under the restrictive rules of the ESA.

The USFWS will now be given the task of managing the gray wolf in the entire lower 48 states, a task they are not able to do. They don’t have the resources to undertake such an event. What will that mean to our other wildlife populations and the property rights of all Americans?

Much of this is unknown but an investigation into what is happening in certain areas is certainly revealing enough that it should cause concern. The facts are that in certain areas where wolves are growing unchecked and unmanaged, elk and deer populations are disappearing at historic rates. Is this really what we want? Is this really what the ESA was created for?

Livestock depredation is on the rise in specific areas along with wolf and human encounters. These surely will continue to increase. Again I ask was this the intention of the ESA in 1973 when it was written?

Environmentalists have managed to make a sham out of the ESA through their lawsuits and as much as I hate to support judges, some of their rulings are in line with the text of the ESA. Animal activism, all in the name of saving one animal, is now putting others at risk. We can’t let this happen. Friedman’s ruling is detrimental to the health and sustainability of all of our wildlife nationwide.

As I see it, should this ruling force the USFWS to opt against a listing of a species because the interpretation of the ESA is so flawed, then the environmentalists will just be forced to change their lawsuit tactics and begin suing to force the USFWS to list even when they don’t want to. We already know that the enviros believe the ESA was written to “require” the feds to list and protect every species in existence in this country.

If we don’t act immediately to rewrite the Endangered Species Act, the years of hard work and billions of dollars expended will soon be flushed down the drain.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wolves In Great Lakes To Go Back Under Protection Of ESA

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled today that the USFWS is breaking the rules of the Endangered Species Act by attempting to delist the wolves in the Great Lakes area. As I understand the ruling, the court is saying that because wolves were listed as endangered everywhere south of the Canadian border, then removing them from protection cannot be done until evidence shows recovery everywhere south of the Canadian border exists. In short, never!

I am in the process now of analyzing the ruling but if this is the case, then this is a clear indication of a faulty ESA, one in drastic need of amending. A ruling like this, if upheld, would have sweeping consequences across the entire country.

I’ll have more on this ruling tomorrow.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Obama Opposes First Amendment And Second Amendment

What are we to think? We know that Barack Obama essentially opposes your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Since his decision to run for president, Obama has become a typical chameleon trying to convince voters he supports the Second Amendment. Intelligent people know the difference and can easily look at Obama’s record and comments made in the past that tell a far different story than that he supports the Second Amendment.

Now we have to question whether he supports even the First Amendment. His thugs are threatening and harassing television and radio stations in order to get them to stop airing ads produced by the National Rifle Association. Newsmax has more on the story.

Obama’s lawyers claim that the ads are “false, misleading, and deceptive”, and they should stop airing them or face lawsuits. If the NRA were running ads that were “false, misleading and deceptive”, why would you threaten the businesses airing the ads. Are the tv and radio stations responsible for the content in the ads? I think not!

The NRA is responsible for the content of these ads and they say they stand behind the content and that it is accurate.

Again I ask, what are we to think? Any candidate, not matter what seat he or she is seeking, that would trample over First and Second Amendment rights, is nobody I want in office in this country anywhere.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gov. Corzine Sees No Bear Problem

Today I am in no mood to deal with politicians. I have absolutely no respect left for any of them. Today, they are all ignorant and more interested in themselves and saving their own butts than anything you or I have to say to them. But I must move on.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine exemplified his expertise, dazzled us with his wisdom and bowled us over with his intelligence recently by telling a reporter for the New Jersey Herald that the current black bear problem in parts of New Jersey was only a problem “if you want to call it that”.

I’m glad he set me straight because today I am angry because I was told we have a problem with our economy. Now that I know that if I just stop calling it that, there won’t be one anymore. Problem solved? Only if you’re a moron.

The governor also said it was only a matter of perception. Even though recent reports from his own state agencies say bear complaints have skyrocketed this year over last, Corzine says that’s not true. He says there are fewer complaints this year and I guess if we see more or read about the increase in complaints, we are perceiving it wrong. Am I glad I got out of bed today.

Maybe I need to move to New Jersey. Things must look a whole lot different there than other places. I once knew a man who discovered he was dying of cancer and had only 6 weeks left to live. He decided he was moving to New Jersey. When asked why, he said that he heard living in New Jersey for 6 weeks seemed like 6 years.

But in Gov. Corzine’s ability to excite his constituency with his vast knowledge of events around his state and in particular the bear problem, he once again impressed upon us all how dutifully he does his job. I assume he must have made the mistake because nobody would rationally admit to it, he said that he hadn’t yet talked with anyone at the Division of Fish and Wildlife about the bear problems.

Maybe we should check to see if Corzine is somehow related to Barack Obama. Perhaps he too is “anointed”. Maybe he is just all-knowing and doesn’t need to have facts and information given to him. Maybe he just knows it all.

Or, then again, he probably is just an anti-hunting, liberal, animal lover who could care less about science and wildlife management.

Further updates:

Last week I told you about Janet Piszar, the director of the Bear Education And Resource (B.E.A.R.) Group. Seems there is a lot of rebutting going on at the Daily Record.

Anthony Mauro, Chair of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance took Piszar to task over supposed facts and information she had written about in the editorial I had commented on with readers earlier last week. Piszar didn’t like Mauro’s rebuttal, so she respondedagain.

Piszar once again laments that New Jersey doesn’t have a bear management plan in the context that it is somehow the fault of bear hunters in New Jersey and if they had a plan all this would magically disappear. I’ll remind readers again that the reason New Jersey doesn’t have a bear management plan can be blamed on DEP Chief, Liza Jackson. She tossed the court-approved plan in the garbage upon taking over the position under newly elected Gov. Jon Corzine.

What I find strangely odd and actually quite humorous is Piszar’s latest reference to where her vast knowledge comes from. After citing the work on probably the only person who fits her group’s agenda, she gives us all a brief history of wildlife management, stating that the states wildlife management decisions have been ongoing for over 100 years. Isn’t a bit disturbing that someone would simply discard the proven successes of the past 100 years in favor on one man’s opinion of what he thinks is the best way to “learn to live with bears”?

Isn’t it just as odd that up until the time that the liberals took over and the animal rights and anti-hunting groups have fallen under the favor of the governor, parts of the state have the biggest wildlife problems they have ever faced?

It is disingenuous to blame this on 100 years of proven bear management and hunters. Time for Piszar and her group to take the governor and Ms. Jackson and act like bears and go hibernate.

And to finish this off on a quite humorous note, reader Jim shared with me that he went to the Morristown Street Fair, he said to pick up the latest propaganda the antis were passing out. He said a “very sensitive male anti” approached him and asked him if he knew what to do if he saw a bear.

Jim told him he’d shoot it.

“No, no, no, no!” the man said. “You have to make noise and back away slowly!”

Jim’s reply, “Not if he’s in my house!”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

America In Crisis!

*Scroll for Updates*

Americans are about to forced to drink the nastiest Kool-Aid ever concocted by man. We are going to have a bill shoved down our throats that we are being told is good and necessary. Mind you, we are being told this is a good bill by the same people who are responsible for putting the United States on the brink of economic disaster. Do you want to believe them and drink their vial formula?

I do not support this bill and I hope every American citizen does not support this bill. I can’t begin to tell you the bad that awaits the passage of this bailout bill.

However, we are left with virtually little we can do about the bill. There is much though that we can do after the bill is passed, if you care. I encourage everyone who reads this article to email or pick up the phone and call your U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative and tell them EXACTLY what you think of them. Tell them you do not support this bill and that you no longer support “business as usual” in Washington. Tell them you intend never to vote for a republican or a democrat who does not care about “We the People”, who cares very little for a republic, who puts off capitalism as though it were some plague, who takes money from special interest and is willing to sell our country in exchange for a vote. Tell them that and mean it.

I contacted my congressman, Mel Martinez. Here’s what he told me.

I believe that this problem is far too complex and serious to be handled in the same ultra-partisan fashion that has unfortunately characterized much of the 110th Congress. I assure you that I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to address this crisis and enact meaningful reforms to protect homeowners and ensure the long-term economic prosperity of our country.

Isn’t it just a bit too late for that? Isn’t the reason we are here now because this same Congress, the same politicians who passed the laws that allowed for Wall Street to give away money they knew could never be repaid, carried on with business as usual? And now they want to be the heroes and fix it!

After today, America will never be the same. I hate to sound this way but I am ill today, upset, angry, ready to go to Washington and take a whole lot of men out behind the barn. What is it going to take to get “We the People” to get off our dead asses and take back this country? I question whether we care anymore. Maybe we will care when it is too late. Or maybe we are more concerned about who will win Monday Night Football?

If you turn on your television, log onto the Internet or read a newspaper and hear or read about someone telling you this is good for the country, they are lying. They haven’t a clue as to what free enterprise and capitalism are. They have no history of what made America great. And more than likely they stand in line to profit from all this.

America will change forever if we let it but it is not too late to stem the tide and turn things around. It is up to you. Congress is broken. They are as responsible for this mess as anyone and yet they will not assume responsibility for it. The democrats want to blame the republicans and republicans blame the democrats. We all bear a degree of blame but now we have an opportunity presented to us as free Americans to do something about this. You and I hold the power of the ballot box. It is time we do something about it.

If we put the right people in Washington, we can begin to build a road that will lead us back to financial freedom and success and away from socialist practices. We can find a way to stop rewarding those who are greedy, who lie, cheat and steal at the expense of you and I. Capitalism rewards those who work hard. That is what has made us great.

Pick up your telephone right now and call your congressman. Email them or whatever it takes to get their attention. Tell them you want your America back. Tell them you will no longer vote for them unless they change their ways. You must demand action that will put us back on track. Our government is headed in the wrong direction. The alternative is a continued downward spiral of greed and corruption. We will see more nationalized banking. This bill rips the guts out of capitalism.

I have heard ignorant Americans say this only proves capitalism doesn’t work. How wrong they are. What this proves is that capitalism doesn’t work when allowed to run amok, over regulated and a government that encourages poor business practices all in the name of your vote.

I know most of you will not agree with me but I encourage you to look at what this bill will do and not buy into the scare tactics used by those trying to save their own butts. Why should you or I believe a word that comes from their deceitful mouths?

The most intelligent response I heard came from one of the few republican House members opposing this bill. He asked why, if this bailout proposal wasn’t good enough for private industry to take upon themselves, it is good enough for the American taxpayer?

It’s time for a revolution and that begins with you! I want my country back!

Update – 11:11 a.m. Sept, 29, 2008

Rep. McCotter of Michigan speaks on the House floor.

12:10 P.M. Sept. 29, 2008 – House website is being slammed hard with people reading the text of the bill etc. Here’s a site where you can get the information without so much trouble. Thanks to The Open House Project.

2:26 P.M. Sept. 29, 2008 – Vote on bailout bill in the House fails. Follow this link, or at least try. The government site is so slammed with traffic, it is very difficult to get to it.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Attempting To Discredit Justice Scalia

The Associated Press is doing what it does best in presenting stories that are not representative of the claims they make. In an attempt to smear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the AP claims that conservative judges disagree with Scalia on his opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. They found two, one with sour grapes over not getting nominated by Bush to fill a vacancy in 2005.

The AP claims that these two conservatives accuse Scalia’s ruling as being “activism” and that the court should have taken the same position as Roe v Wade and let the states decide what is best. I do see one big difference. In Roe v Wade the decision is whether or not to allow a woman the right to decide whether to kill her unborn baby and in District of Columbia v Heller, it’s about interpreting the Second Amendment. No conservative judge would consider allowing states to disregard the U.S. Constitution.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mired!

So for the low postings today. I’m mired in research!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Father Shoots Grizzly Attacking Son With Bow

Thanks for the tip, George!

A father and son on an elk hunt surprise a grizzly and as you can imagine the bear surprises them. The bear attacks the son and the father kept his cool and took down the bear with his bow and arrow.

Read the whole story. Good read!

Oh, and for an added reading bonus, check out the entertainment of the comments that follow the story.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

PETA Says Use Woman’s Milk Instead Of Cow’s For Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream

When you get done laughing at this concept (and if you aren’t laughing you probably should think about buying stock in human milk farms) think about it from many different angles and possibilities. Then relate that to how sick an organization PETA is.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Senate Democrats Block Bill To Restore D.C. Gun Rights As Ruled By Supreme Court

CQPolitics is reporting that the U.S. Senate democrats are blocking efforts, even threatening a filibuster, on a bill that would restore some gun rights to residents of the District of Columbia.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bitter, Clinging To Guns? Now I Don’t Care About Jews Or Blacks?

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience yesterday that:

“anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

Earlier in this campaign we heard of Barack Obama describing rural Pennsylvanians as bitter, clinging to guns and religion, showing antipathy toward those not like them. What a huge disappointment.

Now this coming from Rep. Hastings speaking at a conference of Jews and African-American Democrats. Of course this was his demented and perverse way of dissing Gov. Sarah Palin. Why do we have to stand for this? Is this not a double standard? What have we become?

We wonder about our Second Amendment rights and when our own leaders, making the laws and sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, view people who own guns and hunt as uncaring toward Jews and blacks, it is ignorant and stereotyping at its worst.

Is this what we have really been facing all these years in our fight for Second Amendment rights? Have I been so naive to think that it was more about interpretation, fear and dealing with control freaks that I couldn’t see that it’s based on hatred, misunderstanding and stereotyping? Do too many Americans think of gun owners and hunters this way?

Maybe Mr. Hastings should take a page out of Obama’s campaign book, seeings as he is supporting him for president, and realize that he is showing his antipathy and dislike toward those not like him.

It’s all quite disgusting actually and Rep. Hastings gets a free ride!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Montana Fish, Wildlife And Parks Confused About Recent Livestock Kills By Wolves

It seems, according to Montana FWP that they don’t understand why a pack of wolves in Northwest Montana would suddenly begin attacking livestock and killing it. They say all of their “normal” explanations can’t account for this change in behavior.

That’s interesting! Perhaps they should read Dr. Valerius Geist’s article, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?” This article clearly explains the stages of behavior a wolf goes through before learning to attack and kill its prey. I am sure that the FWP could learn a lot from Dr. Geist’s article.

In a piece in the Flathead Beacon, it says that FWP authorities are stumped but at the end of the article, the writer makes this statement.

The wolf population and the number of packs in northwest Montana is clearly on the rise. In 2007, FWP recorded 35 livestock and dog kills by wolves. As a result, the agency lethally removed 19 wolves.

Assuming that the writer of the article, Dan Testa, got that information from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks personnel, this is in complete contradiction to the information released last week by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that claimed wolf populations were on the decline for the first time.

None of this is reassuring to anyone. Is the MFWP in denial about wolf behavior? Who is telling the truth on wolf populations? We may never know as long as these agency play politics with wolves.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gore And Obama Have Lost Their Minds

We all know the old adage that “birds of a feather flock together”? Well, consider this, coming from two of our so-called world leaders. Last week the democratic nominee for President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, told his followers to go out and get in people’s faces and tell them where the bear……..er, never mind.

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.

“And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going [to] lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.”

And now Al Gore, with jowls flapping in anger as he tried to make his point, tells the followers of his man-made global warming cult that it was time for civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal-fired power plants.

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,”

This was stated at the Clinton Global Initiative meetings of which John McCain is scheduled to address.

What’s next? Banging their heads against the wall because they can’t have their way? Give me a break!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Who’s Checking The Fact Checkers?

Maybe it’s John Lott Jr. in an opinion and analysis for Fox News. Obama’s campaign is livid over ads being run by the National Rifle Association stating Obama’s positions and past records on Second Amendment issues. Obama’s people say the ads are “just flatly false”.

So FactCheck.org was called in to check the information the NRA is putting in their ads. It seems that FactCheck.org might not be the unbiased truth squad we have all come to rely on. This of course depends on what you want to believe and how much information you choose to ignore or accept.

In John Lott’s analysis, he does an excellent job of taking each of the issues addressed by FactCheck.org and doing his own fact checking. He also points out at least to major media outlets simply used FactCheck.org’s information and restated it in their own articles.

For those who have been on top of Obama’s positions, past and present on gun control, you may not find anything really new in the fact checking process. What you will find is a revelation of how FactCheck.org sees things and arrives at conclusions, at least in a political campaign, leaving me to wonder about all their other checked facts. Hmmmmmm!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »