Clayton Cramer is running against a republican incumbent for Idaho’s District 22 Senate seat. Why? He puts it this way, “I’m running for Idaho State Senate seat 22 against the Republican incumbent, who I don’t see as conservative enough for our district.” This immediately grabbed my attention. As most of you know, I am a conservative, proud to be one and will help trustworthy people at all levels to attain positions where they can further conservative teachings and values. I believe Mr. Cramer does just that.

I was quite impressed as I learned more about Clayton Cramer. He contributed his knowledge and expertise in drafting an amicus brief in the recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing of District of Columbia vs. Heller. As most of you know, I spent a considerable amount of time following and reporting on that case.

A visit to Cramer’s website reveals much about him. He says he moved from California to Boise, Idaho because, “the California that I grew up in–where patriotism wasn’t a dirty word, and where family values still mattered–doesn’t exist anymore“.

On the Second Amendment:

For many Idahoans, the need for a gun rights activist in the state legislature might not be obvious. Idaho is fortunate to have a very strong guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in our state constitution. We are also fortunate that the Idaho Supreme Court has spoken clearly about this matter–unlike some other states. But make no mistake about it: there are people in Idaho who, if they had their way, would restrict gun ownership so heavily that many law-abiding adults would find it difficult to own a gun.

Cramer’s beliefs in gun rights seem to be firmly grounded into an understanding learned from a very young age.

When I was growing up, I used to get my ice cream cones from a woman with a tattoo. It wasn’t pretty or fashionable; it was just a letter and some numbers. Like a valuable piece of machinery, she had a serial number. She was fortunate that her value as a piece of machinery exceeded her “scrap value,” or she would have been gassed and “parted out” for her hair, clothes, and dental work, like millions of others.

The Holocaust, unfortunately, was not unique. In the twentieth century, more than 56 million people were killed by their own governments, because of their ethnicity, their race, their religion, their political beliefs–and sometimes for no reason at all. Restrictive gun control laws, while not the only cause of these genocidal actions, certainly made it much easier. On a smaller scale, lynching and oppression of the freed slaves was made possible at least in part by post-Civil War gun control laws that greatly simplified the terrorizing of blacks into submission.

Never again! There are certainly risks that Idaho’s relatively loose gun control laws cause us–but those are nothing compared to the risks of government out of control. Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

On the environment:

This will probably be a surprise to you–but the evidence for global warming is far less certain than you think. Even if it is happening, it is not clear that mankind is the major force behind it. We may not even be a minor force.

I will not support any public policy action to deal with “global warming” until we have clear evidence of its magnitude, and that we know how much of it is the work of man, and how much is factors beyond our control. Some of those who are advocating that we “do something” before it is too late have financial interests in making sure we “do something.” As usual, there are business interests looking to make money off this–and if they destroy the economy and jobs of millions of people, so what?

I have many readers and a lot of friends in Idaho and in the District 22 region. I ask you to consider the merits and qualifications of Clayton Cramer as your next state senator.

Judy Boyle, who is a friend of mine and is running for Idaho House District 9, thinks Clayton Cramer is better than a good candidate. I contacted Judy to ask her what she could tell me about Mr. Cramer and her response pretty much said it all. “He’s awesome!”

To learn more about Clayton Cramer, visit his website. Also check out this information on Judy Boyle.

More on District of Columbia vs. Heller

Tom Remington

Some Pennsylvania deer hunters have yelled a lot ever since the Pennsylvania Game Commission began its current deer management program. This program calls for the reduction in deer populations throughout the state, mostly based on what has been deemed a destruction of forest habitat by too many foraging deer. Some hunters don’t like the reduction. They say now there aren’t enough deer and the program is not working. Perhaps their yelling has paid off.

Rep. David Levdansky of Allegheny is proposing House Resolution 642, which calls for an audit to be done of the deer management program by outside sources. According to the Morning Call, the audit requests specific tasks be accomplished.

To that end, Levdansky’s resolution includes a litany of specific topics the audit will address, including deer population trends for the past 12 years; a current deer population estimate for the entire state and each Wildlife Management Unit; a scientific review of the agency’s modeling techniques for deer harvests, deer health and forest health; the potential impact of acid rain in relation to deer on forest regeneration; a comparison of Pennsylvania’s deer management techniques to other states; and an evaluation of the current size of existing Wildlife Management Units.

The cost of the audit will run an estimated $100,000 to $200,000 and then that will put an end to all the yelling, fighting, back stabbing, bickering and lawsuits, right? Well, probably not exactly and in reality, it probably won’t change much of anything.

At least some hope that the audit will give hunters and the PGC a more accurate estimate of the existing deer population. One of the tasks of the auditing people will be to make recommendations as well as deliver hard facts. At issue also is the size and number of Wildlife Management Units. Some say the units are laid out wrong and/or too small or too big. Perhaps the auditors will make recommendations in that way.

But to quiet the masses, I don’t think that will ever happen. There’s some hope that it may help ease the dissatisfaction but in my opinion the majority of those unhappy will more than likely always remain unhappy for a host of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of one reason. There just is bad blood between some sportsmen and the government agencies who make the decisions. Some of that bad blood is a result of dissatisfaction over the new deer management plan and some if it has always been there and probably always will be.

If approved, which would only take the approval of the House vote, as per a resolution not a bill, once signed would have to be completed within one year.

I hope the audit proves to be a good thing for the Pennsylvania hunters, landowners and game personnel.

Tom Remington

“Now, I readily admit that I am not a scientist; but then neither are the vast majority of those who espouse the currently fashionable madness. Moreover, most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute.”

The above was taken from an article written by Nigel Lawson and published in the Daily Mail, the title of which is; “The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change”.

Lawson examines the truth about how the actions being taken by global warming alarmists will actually cause more harm than do any good. This all based on scientific fact. (Frightening concept I know) What’s also interesting is that Lawson spends little time trying to dispute whether man made carbon dioxide emissions are hurting the climate or not, but strongly questions whether the actions we are taking are intelligent and sensible based on facts and evidence.

If you care about discovering more truth behind the consequences of the path we are choosing to take, set aside about 20 minutes of your time and read this article. You might look at things differently.

Tom Remington