During the last attempt to delist wolves, a lawsuit, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, was awarded to the plaintiffs that failed at removing gray wolves from federal protection. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that he was going to place protection of the wolves back under the ESA until such time as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), i.e. Department of Interior, could show how they had the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves, or any other species, for the purpose of delisting that same species.

Shortly after that ruling, I wrote that Friedman’s decision was not at all based on scientific evidence and that the Judge had no legitimate reason to return wolves to protection other than the fact that as a judge, he could.

For what it’s worth, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, on December 12, 2008, issued an official opinion as to how the USFWS has authority under the ESA to create a DPS in order to delist a species.

In the most recent proposal to delist wolves, the USFWS briefly explains their authority:

Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service’s program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act’s protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the Act’s text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and policy objectives.

The information presented to support the USFWS’ authority to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species within that DPS is not new information. The same information existed in 2008 and yet somehow the USFWS in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, couldn’t sufficiently explain to Judge Paul Friedman where it got it’s authority; another example of ineptitude or corruption in representing the people in the court of law.

This is but one issue that could possibly derail an attempt to delist gray wolves. If lawsuits, which are as sure to happen as the sun rising in the morning, are intended to stop the delisting, will the explanations given in this proposal satisfy Judge Friedman’s query as to where USFWS gets its authority?

Unfortunately, this proposal to delist is further complicated by adding to it a determination by the USFWS not to recognize another species of wolf cohabiting in the same DPS. Why was it necessary to do this? Why couldn’t the USFWS made a separate announcement or proposal that it did not feel that sufficient scientific evidence existed to determine the existence of another species of wolf(eastern wolf)?

As complex as proposals to delist a species can get, why would the USFWS choose to clutter up this delisting with information pertaining to separate petitions? Efforts like this leave people like me wondering if the real intention of the USFWS is to derail the delisting for personal agendas, etc.

While I and others place our attention of things like whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the courts to explain their authority to create DPS’s for delisting, and whether or not a proposal cluttered with explanations aimed at nefarious petitions and claims of the existence of a brand new species of wolf, in the end all that will matter is what one judge thinks.

Sportsmen in the WGL region shouldn’t spend too much time just yet honing their wolf hunting and trapping skills.

Tom Remington

But, there’s no finer place for these critters to live than in city parks. They are so friendly, it shouldn’t be long before they’ll move into your back yard and be really, really close. How lovely. Remember, take in your garbage, put lids on tight and leave your pets inside.

Oh, you don’t need to thank the hunters and trappers. This is all of your own doing. You want them protected so you share in the blessings of “learning to coexist with them” as your drivel always says. So have at it. Don’t get angry. The coyotes are only doing what coyotes do. But you should get to working with more effort to reduce those human populations. Nasty people ruining life for the doggies!

Oh, and don’t be dismayed. The idiots in charge say they are going to “humanely” trap and relocate the dogs. Good luck with that. Make sure they get relocated in other parks around Chicago, just in case they don’t have wild doggies of their own to possess and love.

Sharing the wealth the Chicago way. That’s what it’s all about.

Hey, do you suppose the prison where Gov. Blagojevich has any coyotes to play with. You could send some over there.

Tom Remington

While most discuss whether this is a safety issue and invasion of privacy, nobody is talking about why the people of Illinois should have to register their guns in the first place.

Tom Remington

In 2010, RMEF and its Illinois supporters are funding a variety of outdoor skills programs for youths, women and the physically challenged across the state. Seven projects were selected to receive grants, affecting Cass, Clinton, Henderson, Menard, Mercer, Perry, Pope, Sangamon, Warren and Winnebago counties.

An additional project has statewide interest.

“Illinois is home to thousands of conservationists devoted to ensuring the future of elk and elk habitat. While they’re at it, they’re also supporting worthy causes right in their own backyards,” said David Allen, president and CEO of RMEF.

RMEF grants will help fund the following projects, listed by county:

Clinton County – ?Provide sponsorship for an annual youth skills camp providing outdoor experiences for youth. Activities include archery, shooting, clay target shooting, horseback riding, hunting, trapping, boating/water safety, survival training, numerous field trips and classes.

Henderson County – Help promote youth development through 4-H shooting sports programs (also affects Mercer and Warren counties).

Menard County – Promote the shooting sports and conservation as family activities through 4-H shooting sports programs (also affects Cass and Sangamon counties).

Perry County – Provide sponsorship for students participating in the Scholastic Clay Target Program, which develops skills in clay target shooting.

Pope County – Provide sponsorship for Stewardship Week to educate youths from across southern Illinois about the management of natural land and wildlife resources.

Winnebago County – Provide sponsorship to conduct youth deer and duck hunts, which also include conservation education.

Statewide – Acquire an educational wildlife trunk to promote youth conservation education and awareness within Illinois.

A state leadership team of RMEF volunteers and staff awards grants each year.

Partners for 2010 projects in Illinois include the 4-H Shooting Sports, Illinois Conservation Foundation, Illinois Federation for Outdoor Resources, Illinois Forest Resource Center-University of Illinois, other organizations, companies and businesses, schools and landowners.

Illinoisan Bob Torstenson was introduced to RMEF through the local chapter in Rockford. Passionate about elk and driven to conserve the faraway places where elk live, Torstenson took his inspiration to a new level. In 2002, he posthumously gifted to RMEF a 95,000-acre New Mexico ranch and a $4 million endowment, an historic gift that ranks as the largest ever received by RMEF.

The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.

Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.

Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.

A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.

So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?

If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?

How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?

Tom Remington

It is a simple rule of life that when brawling in a barroom, there are no rules. It is with this simple rule in mind that I bring to your attention to a minor, yet potentially major, aspect of the known biology of a little recognized species of tapeworm that infects wolves and dogs.

This species of tapeworm, Echinococcus multilocularis, has just been found in wolves in Slovakia. In North America, this species of tapeworm has been found only in western and northwestern Canada and a small area of Montana. A parasitologist recently mentioned to me that it may have spread into North Dakota as I am writing this.

This species, multilocularis, is of importance to rural North Americans since it is readily spread by infected wolves to dogs and humans. Dogs (and wandering wolves) can infest yards and homes (human living spaces) with the eggs of this tapeworm. The eggs are not only persistent, they are readily picked up by humans, their clothing, and boots and brought inside where toddlers and those that do not routinely wash their hands to those that unknowingly breath in the eggs when the eggs are disturbed and airborne in the home can become infected. One other rather important point is that the cysts formed by this tapeworm in human tissues and organs are very dangerous since they can only be removed by surgery and if they are ruptured (very difficult to avoid) during surgery, they can cause death. In other words this is one of the most dangerous (to humans) tapeworms carried by and spread by wolves.

So you are probably wondering what all this has to do with “brawling in barrooms”? The answer is that the foregoing information contains a nugget of information that has great consequences if I am willing to present it like the environmental radical community presents select propaganda in a way that I find repugnant.

I have long been outraged at the environmental religious tenet that is dressed up in “science” under the rubric of “INVASIVE SPECIES”. This bit of fantasy holds that there is something “sacred” or “right” about a “Native Ecosystem” and therefore any species of life that is not “Native” is therefore “Invasive” and subject to eradication and/or total exclusion from places that they are not “Native” to. “Native” is defined as the biological communities that were in Pre-Columbian North America, that is pre-1492 when the supposedly impure Europeans contaminated this continent. This concept is a direct copy of the Nazi-era German plans and programs aimed at re-establishing “Pre-Roman” plants and animals that were the result of equally impure Romans contaminating the Teutonic paradise. Repugnant is too light a word to describe what I feel for this biological chicanery.

In the past ten years environmental and animal rights radicals have used this “Invasive Species” argument to justify expanding federal authority, federal programs, and the federal budget. While they always use bogeymen like Brown Tree Snakes (Guam) or Killer Bees and Kudzu (southern US) to justify their wishes, time shows how they are aiming more at pheasants and brown trout to diminish hunting and fishing or specious assertions to justify stopping grazing or logging or shutting down growing portions of the public estate. This is done based in large measure on “science” that is on par with the global warming/climate control/global cooling quackery of recent times.

Yet it has worked, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and this gander now invokes the “Invasive Species” bugaboo with all the enthusiasm of a Druidic priest praying to mistletoe high in a winter oak as we all dance around a campfire.

Forget that Echinococcus multilocularis is deadly to humans. Forget that other tapeworms both dangerous and potentially deadly to humans AND carried by and spread by wolves are ubiquitous (all over the place) in North America. So far as I can determine from the literature (oooh that sounds so… scientific) and from talking to acquaintances that are familiar with the topic — Echinococcus multilocularis has NEVER been found in North America outside western Canada and a small area of Montana. Therefore, (drum roll please) Echinococcus multilocularis is an INVASIVE SPECIES in all lower 48 states with the exception of Montana (who could probably adopt a County approach to Invasive Species eradication and get in on this action.)

Now since the wolf was stocked by the federal government and is protected by the federal government AND IS THE VECTOR OR CARRIER OF THIS DEADLY INVASIVE SPECIES, AND SINCE THE WOLF HAS SPREAD INTO THE NORTHERN GREAT LAKES STATES, MONTANA, WYOMING, UTAH, IDAHO, AND NOW WASHINGTON, OREGON, COLORADO, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND IS STRAGGLING INTO THE DAKOTAS, ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA AS WELL AS OTHER STATES; what can be done? Can the states kill all of these carriers of this truly deadly Invasive Species? Can state legislatures resist or overcome federal wolf sanctimony by declaring total war on these vectors of a deadly Invasive Species? How can the federal government justify spreading this infectious agent when they are charged Constitutionally with promoting “the General Welfare” in the very Preamble of the Constitution of the United States? Where are all the acolytes of a “pure Native Ecosystem”?

Like they say, when in a barroom brawl be prepared to do whatever it takes to win or get the heck out of there pronto. I (and you too, I hope) have no intention of running away from this fight so let’s either see this “Invasive Species” nonsense put to bed or lets haul all of these government wolf-enablers in the hoosegow for endangering rural Americans with a program that places a vector of a deadly-to-human Invasive Species infections under total protection while it invades the native state ecosystems while further endangering rural Americans’ families, livelihoods, communities, and ways-of-life.

This is no joke!

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:

jimbeers7@comcast.net

Last September, 2008, federal judge Paul Friedman, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. remanded a lawsuit brought against the Department of Interior back to the USFWS “for further proceedings”. This, according to Friedman’s ruling, was because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to show that they had authority under the Endangered Species Act to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in order to delist a population of wolves. (Also known as a clerical technicality that really has no bearing on the case, in my opinion.)

According to the USFWS, they took care of their “further proceedings” and printed a Final Rule in April 2009, removing, once again, the gray wolf from federal protection. I know it may be difficult to fathom, but immediately a lawsuit was filed by The Humane Society of the United States, et. al., against the Department of Interior. Their claim being that USFWS violated the ESA by not providing a proper 60-day comment period before publishing the final rule.

A settlement was reached between the USFWS and HSUS and signed by Judge Paul Friedman that halts the delisting of wolves, places them back on the endangered and threatened species list and, should the USFWS decide to proceed again to delist the wolf, they must abide by the rules of administrative procedure, including a 60-day public comment period. (As well as be subject to paying plaintiff’s legal fees.)

I think you can clearly see the Yo-Yo effect here. I’m not a lawyer and am surely no expert on legal affairs but it would appear to me that the USFWS should have known that once Judge Paul Friedman remanded the case back in September 2008 and ruled that wolves be returned to federal protection, that any movement toward delisting again would require the same fundamental ESA administrative procedures. Give me a break. Are these guys wasting the courts time and taxpayer money?

But here’s the bigger question that I have. Judge Paul Friedman, in his September 2008 ruling, says he cannot see where the USFWS has the authority under the ESA to create a Distinct Population Segment of wolves in the Western Great Lakes for the purpose of delisting. He says the ESA is ambiguous and does not provide a definition. He also says the USFWS failed to present evidence that they could do this. This was all part of the “further proceedings” that Friedman remanded back the the Department. The question I have is what did the USFWS do about this defining of and creation of DPSs?

Because the Final Rule of April 2009 is no longer valid, we can only go by what the USFWS said about this.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because, in the judge’s opinion, the Endangered Species Act is ambiguous on the issue of whether a DPS can be identified and delisted simultaneously and, therefore, the Service should have provided an explanation for their interpretation of the ESA. To address the court’s concern, this Rule explains why simultaneously identifying and delisting DPSs of currently listed species is consistent with the ESA’s text, structure, policy objectives and legislative history, and relevant judicial interpretations.

The way I see it is that if the USFWS once again, attempts to delist the wolves in the WGL DPS, and they follow the procedures correctly, they will have to rely on the fact that they presented a good enough explanation in any Final Rule to satisfy Judge Friedman. My guess is that this is simply another court case looking for a place to happen.

This is all quite asinine really and a waste of resources, time and money. We have judges in different portions of the country who seemingly are not in agreement on rulings. It’s becoming a dog and pony show making a complete mockery of the Endangered Species Act and its intentions.

Now the Department of Interior will have to decide what they want to do. They must love this Endangered Species Act as it chews up their budget and the valuable time employees could be spent doing something productive. But hey, that would run contrary to big government now wouldn’t it.

One final thought that I really don’t want to explore. If this Yo-Yo effect continues, one would have to wonder exactly what the agenda is for the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I’ll leave it at that.

Tom Remington

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

The above words in the title of this piece where those used by Barack Obama in his email interview with Outdoor Life back last month. Those written words and most of his others on hunting, fishing and Second Amendment are absolute lies meant to deceive the American people!

I have probably shared this story before but I’m going to again because I can. I visited my brother’s house one day about midday several years ago. When I arrived he was attempting to get his son, about four at the time, to eat his lunch, a task nearly every parent has had to deal with at some time or other.

My brother gave his son some simple instructions that he had to eat what was on his plate and then he could get down and play. The two of us migrated to the living room to chat.

After a few moments, my nephew appeared in the living room, big-eyed and sucking for air and explained to his Dad, “I’ve finished eating all of my lunch, Dad, but don’t go look!”

Politicians today have taken on that same childish thinking when it comes to dealing with the voters. They believe, and in most cases can, say anything they want and they know that voters “won’t go look”.

Barack Obama has, throughout this entire campaign, repeated that he supports the Second Amendment. He believes that, providing that the Second Amendment reads and is changed to read the way he wants it to. More on this in a moment.

He has also said, although not as often, that he supports hunters and fishermen. In his email interview with Outdoor Life that I linked to above, Obama says there weren’t too many opportunities to hunt and fish on the South Side of Chicago. He’s never hunted but has fished some while living in Hawaii. He also says he “recognizes” the conservation legacy of hunters and fishermen and what he does as president will advance those goals.

While I did not grow up hunting and fishing, I recognize the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters and anglers. Were it not for America’s hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management and an extensive public lands estate on which to hunt and fish. There are close to 40 million Americans who hunt and fish. Hunting and Fishing plays an important part in our economy and our heritage as a nation. I am courting sportsmen because my policies, actions and decisions as President will advance the goals of hunters and anglers.

This is where I should insert, but don’t go look!

While Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator, it seems he did absolutely nothing to support hunting, fishing and outdoor activities, including some programs designed to encourage kids to get outside – even when asked.

Here is a YouTube video of a recent Sportsmen for McCain Rally held in Oley, Pennsylvania. Aaron Hobbs, National Director of Sportsmen for McCain, shares with the crowd on hand the blatant lack of support by Obama toward the Illinois DNR and hunting and fishing opportunity programs.

It makes it a bit difficult to believe that a man with a past such as this can now claim that his “policies, actions and decisions will advance the goals of hunters and fishermen”.

Just a reminder, don’t go look!

I have spent a fair amount of time working to reveal the lies perpetrated by Obama about his support of the right to keep and bear arms. Once again, it is easy to say pretty much what you want to when you believe nobody is going to exert any effort to see if it’s true. The real truth comes from his past, which requires going and looking. I’ll help you out a bit.

If interested, you can begin here by reading past articles I have done on Barack Obama. You may have to scroll down through some of them to find those specifically about guns and gun rights. Also, check “related articles” at the bottom of the page.

Who better to tell us about Obama’s past record on Illinois gun issues than that states biggest gun lobbyist? On October 10, 2008, Rich Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association and chief lobbyist for that group, sent a letter to his fellow sportsmen relaying some of his past experiences in dealing with Barack Obama as a state Senator.

Much of the letter confirms much of what I have written in past articles about Obama’s past voting record on gun issues. There are two parts of the letter that need a bit further attention. Part one:

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama.

Coming from a person who I would have to agree has first hand experience in dealing with Obama on gun issues, this confirms all previous reports of his desire to rid his world of guns.

The second part that needs attention will lead us into another article that was sent to me by a reader.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

We can add to this list the Handgun Control, Inc., now commonly known as the Brady Campaign.

David T. Hardy of Pajamas Media, earlier this month wrote an article investigating Barack Obama’s past involvement with the Joyce Foundation, of which he was director from 1994-2002. He asks why Obama has kept this so quiet?

During Obama’s tenure, according to Hardy, the Joyce Foundation spent millions of dollars creating and supporting anti-gun organizations, some of which have already been listed. But Hardy spends more time sharing his discovery of Obama’s efforts to target the Supreme Court. The goal? “The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.”

You must read the article. It is eye opening and definitely frightening. This man is a liar who has been successful in keeping from the public the truth about him and his past.

Barack Obama claims to understand the importance of our hunting and fishing heritage. He also says his “policies, actions and decisions as President will advance the goals of hunters and fishermen”. He claims he is a supporter of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

And his biggest hope for his future is that you “WON’T GO LOOK!”

Tom Remington