Obama says 1000 have died from H1N1 flu but CDC data shows no such thing – the CDC hasn’t been testing for H1N1 deaths since last July, probably because the majority of specimens tested are not only not H1N1, but not even flu!
Massive PR campaign by Obama to what end? To justify the massive spending on vaccines (to support Big Pharma) or to set up one more control of the population through fear?
I’m betting both.
Evaluate for yourself: http://articles.mercola.com/swine-flu-article/20091027.htm If you've been told you have H1N1 after August 1, since there's been no actual testing for it, your doctor *cannot know* but is only assuming the diagnosis.
Listen to the audio at the Mercola website - they read actual quotes from CDC!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
AMERICANS FOR PRESERVATION OF WESTERN ENVIRONMENT, INC.
PO BOX 612
RESERVE NM 87830
Ed Wehrheim, Chair
Contact: Ed Wehrheim FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone 575.533.6687
Email: info@amprowest.org
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
Group Asks Is Mexican Wolf Really Worth The Cost
RESERVE, N.M. On August 11, 2009, the Tucson-based environmental litigation group, Center For Biological Diversity (CBD), filed a petition with Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
“The petition calls for taking the Mexican wolf off of its current experimental, non-essential” status and putting it on fully endangered status,” said Ed Wehrheim, Chair of Americans for Preservation of Western Environment (APWE), a citizen-based New Mexico non-profit corporation. APWE was formed in 2008 in response to the outrage of New Mexico and Arizona residents and business owners over the callous disregard for the welfare and safety of human beings by the Mexican Wolf Program.
“CBD also wants a critical habitat designation for the wolves,” Wehrheim said. “This means expansion of the existing designated Mexican wolf area, closure of our trails and roads, denying human access, and hunting and grazing restrictions. In other words, our public lands will be closed to the public. ”
The 22 page petition (with additional 10 pages of citations) claims that the Mexican wolf’s historic range is not precisely known, and that wolves can live anywhere that hosts an adequate prey base of ungulates, yet also claims that these wolves occur in an unusual and unique ecological setting.
“The only unusual and unique setting for the Mexican wolves is that this is a low human population area, so CBD figures that the people don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “Americans for Preservation of Western Environment intends to set CBD straight on that issue.”
APWE’s first annual meeting is being held in Reserve, NM on Saturday, October 10, 2009, at 10 a.m. at the Reserve Community Center. APWE’s board will present an accounting of its work on behalf of the people who live in the Mexican wolf recovery area over the past year, and talk about plans for future actions. Everyone is welcome to attend.
“It’s not as if humans weren’t here, as if humans don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “We’re citizens, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like anyone else. We don’t intend to be run over by environmental litigation groups like CBD.”
"After ten years, more than $400,000 per wolf and untold damage to our communities, they’re trying to blame their own failure with the Mexican wolf program on us, the people who live here in the program area," Wehrheim said.
# # #
PO BOX 612
RESERVE NM 87830
Ed Wehrheim, Chair
Contact: Ed Wehrheim FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone 575.533.6687
Email: info@amprowest.org
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
Group Asks Is Mexican Wolf Really Worth The Cost
RESERVE, N.M. On August 11, 2009, the Tucson-based environmental litigation group, Center For Biological Diversity (CBD), filed a petition with Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
“The petition calls for taking the Mexican wolf off of its current experimental, non-essential” status and putting it on fully endangered status,” said Ed Wehrheim, Chair of Americans for Preservation of Western Environment (APWE), a citizen-based New Mexico non-profit corporation. APWE was formed in 2008 in response to the outrage of New Mexico and Arizona residents and business owners over the callous disregard for the welfare and safety of human beings by the Mexican Wolf Program.
“CBD also wants a critical habitat designation for the wolves,” Wehrheim said. “This means expansion of the existing designated Mexican wolf area, closure of our trails and roads, denying human access, and hunting and grazing restrictions. In other words, our public lands will be closed to the public. ”
The 22 page petition (with additional 10 pages of citations) claims that the Mexican wolf’s historic range is not precisely known, and that wolves can live anywhere that hosts an adequate prey base of ungulates, yet also claims that these wolves occur in an unusual and unique ecological setting.
“The only unusual and unique setting for the Mexican wolves is that this is a low human population area, so CBD figures that the people don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “Americans for Preservation of Western Environment intends to set CBD straight on that issue.”
APWE’s first annual meeting is being held in Reserve, NM on Saturday, October 10, 2009, at 10 a.m. at the Reserve Community Center. APWE’s board will present an accounting of its work on behalf of the people who live in the Mexican wolf recovery area over the past year, and talk about plans for future actions. Everyone is welcome to attend.
“It’s not as if humans weren’t here, as if humans don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “We’re citizens, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like anyone else. We don’t intend to be run over by environmental litigation groups like CBD.”
"After ten years, more than $400,000 per wolf and untold damage to our communities, they’re trying to blame their own failure with the Mexican wolf program on us, the people who live here in the program area," Wehrheim said.
# # #
Thursday, October 1, 2009
What's Truth Got To Do With It?
Defenders of Wildlife is using pity for three legged wolves to raise funds. They say in a "news" release: "Will you help us protect the Middle Fork wolves? Your tax-deductible donation today will help us."
Pay attention here folks! DoW is saying your deduction will help THEM, not the wolves. Those three legged wolves of the Middle Fork pack (that are not too lame to stop killing cattle)? One lost her leg because Fish & Wildlife Service amputated it after an elk kicked the wolf. The other probably was a FWS trapping, too. In fact, FWS has damaged a number of wolves in traps - and I bet you thought they used "have-a-hearts" when they trapped those wolves. Nope. Jaw traps. Your government in action.
Don't forget: The wolf program traps wolves routinely for all kinds of reasons - they just won't let the poor critters alone. They trap to vaccinate them, to change the batteries on their collars, and they trap them when they want to catch up the pups to raise them in captivity.
DoW would have you think that wolves need protecting from mean ranchers who hurt and trap them. But really, wolves need protection from the wolf program more than anything else.
And the public needs protecting from organizations like DoW, that take your money by appealing to your heartstrings. Not to be confused with presenting the facts.
Pay attention here folks! DoW is saying your deduction will help THEM, not the wolves. Those three legged wolves of the Middle Fork pack (that are not too lame to stop killing cattle)? One lost her leg because Fish & Wildlife Service amputated it after an elk kicked the wolf. The other probably was a FWS trapping, too. In fact, FWS has damaged a number of wolves in traps - and I bet you thought they used "have-a-hearts" when they trapped those wolves. Nope. Jaw traps. Your government in action.
Don't forget: The wolf program traps wolves routinely for all kinds of reasons - they just won't let the poor critters alone. They trap to vaccinate them, to change the batteries on their collars, and they trap them when they want to catch up the pups to raise them in captivity.
DoW would have you think that wolves need protecting from mean ranchers who hurt and trap them. But really, wolves need protection from the wolf program more than anything else.
And the public needs protecting from organizations like DoW, that take your money by appealing to your heartstrings. Not to be confused with presenting the facts.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Here's something to think about
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859)
Gee - isn't this what we're seeing right now?
-- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859)
Gee - isn't this what we're seeing right now?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Who’s The Terrorist?
copyright (c) 2009 CR Edmunds
www.onestillfree.com
Also published in Glenwood Gazette Sept. 2009 (Gale Moore, pub., Silver City NM)
The other day I got thinking about terrorism. So much of our lives these days are dictated by the fight against terrorism. We’ve all come to accept the invasive tactics of the US Government everywhere around us in the name of security. We even have a branch of government, Homeland Security, that has in a short time secreted its tentacles into everything in order to keep us safe from terrorists. We have to accept wands and pat-downs and X-rays of our person and our belongings in airports and public buildings, we have travel restrictions and passports to visit neighboring friendly ally countries, phone taps, email taps, credit checks, security cameras on street corners, photo-traffic citations on and on, all in the name of public safety.
Of course, doesn’t this all assume terrorism is something external to the US, that it comes from bad guys from other countries who want to render the US helpless?
I got thinking about how a bunch of bad guys that were really organized and very well financed could most effectively pull the US or any country down. (I want to point out to Homeland Security that I read a lot of fiction and much of what I’m writing here is already in print don’t come busting my doors down while telling me free speech doesn’t count because of the Patriot Act). Anyway, it has become clear to me that, logically, terrorism really would be just a first step. A kind of softening up a country for the real blows that will bring it down. The KO, if you will.
What would weaken a country more than flying planes into landmark buildings? Homeland Security and/or the media would have us believe that it would be nuking a big city. But really, would that take down the US? Were a resilient bunch of citizens I think that wiping out LA (for instance) would just make us all really, really mad once we got over being really, really sad (think of how sad and mad - wed be at losing our Famous Faces in such an attack).
No, I think what would really work to weaken a country would be to literally weaken its people. And it seems to me that the traditional ways of weakening a people would be just as effective now as they have been throughout history: Starvation and disease and isolation.
Here’s the thing: People who eat well are healthy and they don’t get sick as easily. So, if you think about it, wouldn’t the smartest thing be, if you were terrorists and wanted to take down the US, to destroy the food supply, thereby make people dependent on bad food so they’ll get sick more easily?
My thinking goes like this: The US agricultural base is being destroyed by factory farming and by more and more restrictions on small farming (NAIS, anyone?). Our forests, the biomass from the thinning of which could probably replace the use of petroleum for transportation fuel in 10 years, are being burned up because of more and more restrictions on hazardous fuels reduction projects and a push to expand wilderness and create roadless areas on public lands.
Where are our environmental groups in this picture? Are they supporting local production of healthy foods, which is so much less destructive to Mother Earth than factory farming? No, they work hard to destroy small farmers and ranchers. Are they supporting forest restoration that would result in reduced carbon pollution of our atmosphere by reduction of forest fires? No, they work hard to suppress the cutting of any trees at all. Are they supporting use of biomass to create an alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels? No, they fight efforts to develop sustainable, renewable energy.
What do environmental groups do to make our planet a healthier place, where humans and all species can thrive?
Well, actually, when you add up what they are doing, the answer to that question is: Nothing. In fact, when you look at the big picture of environmental efforts by the Big Name Environmental Groups (whose board members are mostly attorneys, not scientists), what that picture really looks like is a series of well-coordinated actions that are aimed to weaken the citizens of this country through starvation, disease and isolation.
Its so plausible: Destroy the family farms and ranches in the name of endangered species. Further destroy local production of healthy foods in the name of pure water. Destroy the possibility of alternative energy sources by attacking wind farms and use of biomass from forests. Destroy the forests themselves by not allowing restoration work, thereby encouraging massive wildfires only one of which can in a few days or weeks dump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as one big city does in a year. (Ironically, the supposedly endangered species' habitats are destroyed as well by wildfire). And when things go down the tubes on our planet because of the success of the above actions, blame it on small farmers and ranchers and you and me, average Joe and Jane US citizen, and file even more lawsuits in the name of environmentalism, because, don’t you know, they’ve got to save the planet.
And then… TKO?
www.onestillfree.com
Also published in Glenwood Gazette Sept. 2009 (Gale Moore, pub., Silver City NM)
The other day I got thinking about terrorism. So much of our lives these days are dictated by the fight against terrorism. We’ve all come to accept the invasive tactics of the US Government everywhere around us in the name of security. We even have a branch of government, Homeland Security, that has in a short time secreted its tentacles into everything in order to keep us safe from terrorists. We have to accept wands and pat-downs and X-rays of our person and our belongings in airports and public buildings, we have travel restrictions and passports to visit neighboring friendly ally countries, phone taps, email taps, credit checks, security cameras on street corners, photo-traffic citations on and on, all in the name of public safety.
Of course, doesn’t this all assume terrorism is something external to the US, that it comes from bad guys from other countries who want to render the US helpless?
I got thinking about how a bunch of bad guys that were really organized and very well financed could most effectively pull the US or any country down. (I want to point out to Homeland Security that I read a lot of fiction and much of what I’m writing here is already in print don’t come busting my doors down while telling me free speech doesn’t count because of the Patriot Act). Anyway, it has become clear to me that, logically, terrorism really would be just a first step. A kind of softening up a country for the real blows that will bring it down. The KO, if you will.
What would weaken a country more than flying planes into landmark buildings? Homeland Security and/or the media would have us believe that it would be nuking a big city. But really, would that take down the US? Were a resilient bunch of citizens I think that wiping out LA (for instance) would just make us all really, really mad once we got over being really, really sad (think of how sad and mad - wed be at losing our Famous Faces in such an attack).
No, I think what would really work to weaken a country would be to literally weaken its people. And it seems to me that the traditional ways of weakening a people would be just as effective now as they have been throughout history: Starvation and disease and isolation.
Here’s the thing: People who eat well are healthy and they don’t get sick as easily. So, if you think about it, wouldn’t the smartest thing be, if you were terrorists and wanted to take down the US, to destroy the food supply, thereby make people dependent on bad food so they’ll get sick more easily?
My thinking goes like this: The US agricultural base is being destroyed by factory farming and by more and more restrictions on small farming (NAIS, anyone?). Our forests, the biomass from the thinning of which could probably replace the use of petroleum for transportation fuel in 10 years, are being burned up because of more and more restrictions on hazardous fuels reduction projects and a push to expand wilderness and create roadless areas on public lands.
Where are our environmental groups in this picture? Are they supporting local production of healthy foods, which is so much less destructive to Mother Earth than factory farming? No, they work hard to destroy small farmers and ranchers. Are they supporting forest restoration that would result in reduced carbon pollution of our atmosphere by reduction of forest fires? No, they work hard to suppress the cutting of any trees at all. Are they supporting use of biomass to create an alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels? No, they fight efforts to develop sustainable, renewable energy.
What do environmental groups do to make our planet a healthier place, where humans and all species can thrive?
Well, actually, when you add up what they are doing, the answer to that question is: Nothing. In fact, when you look at the big picture of environmental efforts by the Big Name Environmental Groups (whose board members are mostly attorneys, not scientists), what that picture really looks like is a series of well-coordinated actions that are aimed to weaken the citizens of this country through starvation, disease and isolation.
Its so plausible: Destroy the family farms and ranches in the name of endangered species. Further destroy local production of healthy foods in the name of pure water. Destroy the possibility of alternative energy sources by attacking wind farms and use of biomass from forests. Destroy the forests themselves by not allowing restoration work, thereby encouraging massive wildfires only one of which can in a few days or weeks dump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as one big city does in a year. (Ironically, the supposedly endangered species' habitats are destroyed as well by wildfire). And when things go down the tubes on our planet because of the success of the above actions, blame it on small farmers and ranchers and you and me, average Joe and Jane US citizen, and file even more lawsuits in the name of environmentalism, because, don’t you know, they’ve got to save the planet.
And then… TKO?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
How stupid does Obama think we are?
U.S. Raises Estimate for 10-Year Deficit to $9 Trillion
NY Times 08/25/09
The Obama administration, citing an economic downturn that has been deeper than it had first thought, raised its estimate on Tuesday of the government's deficit over the next decade to $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion. More...
$7.1 trillion, $9 trillion - what difference does it make? We've been sold out, people. We're talking $9 with 12 zeros after it in debt! In just over half a year we've gone from "mere" billions to trillions in debt. Does Obama really expect us to think this is an economic improvement?
And, perhaps more worrisome - is it possible that the number is even worse than that?
NY Times 08/25/09
The Obama administration, citing an economic downturn that has been deeper than it had first thought, raised its estimate on Tuesday of the government's deficit over the next decade to $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion. More...
$7.1 trillion, $9 trillion - what difference does it make? We've been sold out, people. We're talking $9 with 12 zeros after it in debt! In just over half a year we've gone from "mere" billions to trillions in debt. Does Obama really expect us to think this is an economic improvement?
And, perhaps more worrisome - is it possible that the number is even worse than that?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The economic bailout issue in one sentence
"When you’ve got 27 percent unemployment, that is a full-fledged depression down in Perry County, and let’s just see if we can’t figure out how to do something that’s just much more on the ground and direct, that actually gets people jobs." GOV. PHIL BREDESEN, of Tennessee, on using stimulus money to ease joblessness.
Wolves vs. Humans: Which Do the Feds Value More?
Wolves vs. Humans: Which Do the Feds Value More?
For Immediate Release
Thursday, July 23, 2009
For further Information, contact:
Paul Gessing 505-264-6090 or Jim Scarantino 505-256-2523
(Albuquerque)— The federal government's wolf reintrodduction plan is the very definition of big government in some rural areas in New Mexico. While the Rio Grande Foundation has not taken a position one way or the other on whether wolves should be reintroduced, its Investigative Journalist Jim Scarantino, has uncovered what appears to be a rather shocking example of misplaced priorities.
In his new report, "Does the Federal Government Value Wolves More Than Humans? The Money Says It All" Scarantino takes a closer look at the wolf reintroduction program. Since the Mexican wolf reintroduction program was launched more than a decade ago, millions of dollars have been spent by the United States, Arizona and New Mexico governments. The goal was to reestablish a target population of 100 wolves in the mountainous areas of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona
• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the New Mexico and Arizona game departments, by the end of 2009, these agencies estimate that their total expenditures will be approximately $20.5 million;
• According to the USFWWS' 2008 year-end survey, only 52 wolves were roaming the Arizona-New Mexico reintroduction area. This means that each living wolf cost taxpayers nearly $400,000;
• In response to the terrorist attacks oon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Act. This law set the intrinsic value of a human life at $250,000. Higher sums were paid to compensate families for the lost incomes of a love one killed in the attacks. But the value of a human life itself, without regard to that person's ability to earn money, was set at $250,000.
"At $400,000 a wolf and rising," Scarantino asks, "government is valuing the intrinsic value of each wolf more than its values the intrinsic value of human life. Residents in the affected areas have frequently complained that the government seems to care more about "El Lobo" than the human residents who must live with these powerful predators. With these figures, they can now point to government's excessive and endless spending on wolves to prove their point."
The full report is available here: http://www.riograndefoundation.org/new/articles/?EC=ReadArticle&ArticleID=305
For Immediate Release
Thursday, July 23, 2009
For further Information, contact:
Paul Gessing 505-264-6090 or Jim Scarantino 505-256-2523
(Albuquerque)— The federal government's wolf reintrodduction plan is the very definition of big government in some rural areas in New Mexico. While the Rio Grande Foundation has not taken a position one way or the other on whether wolves should be reintroduced, its Investigative Journalist Jim Scarantino, has uncovered what appears to be a rather shocking example of misplaced priorities.
In his new report, "Does the Federal Government Value Wolves More Than Humans? The Money Says It All" Scarantino takes a closer look at the wolf reintroduction program. Since the Mexican wolf reintroduction program was launched more than a decade ago, millions of dollars have been spent by the United States, Arizona and New Mexico governments. The goal was to reestablish a target population of 100 wolves in the mountainous areas of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona
• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the New Mexico and Arizona game departments, by the end of 2009, these agencies estimate that their total expenditures will be approximately $20.5 million;
• According to the USFWWS' 2008 year-end survey, only 52 wolves were roaming the Arizona-New Mexico reintroduction area. This means that each living wolf cost taxpayers nearly $400,000;
• In response to the terrorist attacks oon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Act. This law set the intrinsic value of a human life at $250,000. Higher sums were paid to compensate families for the lost incomes of a love one killed in the attacks. But the value of a human life itself, without regard to that person's ability to earn money, was set at $250,000.
"At $400,000 a wolf and rising," Scarantino asks, "government is valuing the intrinsic value of each wolf more than its values the intrinsic value of human life. Residents in the affected areas have frequently complained that the government seems to care more about "El Lobo" than the human residents who must live with these powerful predators. With these figures, they can now point to government's excessive and endless spending on wolves to prove their point."
The full report is available here: http://www.riograndefoundation.org/new/articles/?EC=ReadArticle&ArticleID=305
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
