Obama just doesn't want to accept the fact that the majority of Americans chose divided government and elected representatives from their Congressional Districts in 2010 and 2012 who disagree with his policies, especially on healthcare which was rammed down the throats of the American people because we didn't have divided government at the time. And even then it needed all sorts of legislative gimmicks and political favors to get it passed. Shouldn't the people's representatives have a voice in how the Federal government is run? Or do we have a monarchy?
MYTH #1: THE TEA PARTY IS ANTI-GOVERNMENT
FACT: THE TEA PARTY IS ONLY OPPOSED TO INEFFICIENT, INEFFECTIVE AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT, LIKE WHAT WE HAVE NOW - BROUGHT TO US BY THE STATUS QUO RULING ELITE IN BOTH PARTIES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES OUR MONEY TO BE FOUGHT OVER BY 537 POLITICIANS WITH THEIR ARMY OF BUREAUCRATS AND LOBBYISTS BUT OUR PROBLEMS JUST KEEP GETTING WORSE. WHAT HAPPENED TO HOPE AND CHANGE?
MYTH #2: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HEADED TO EXTINCTION
FACT: AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CLAIMS THE FOLLOWING ACHIEVEMENTS -
30 OF 50 STATE GOVERNORS ARE REPUBLICAN
30 OF 50 STATE SENATES ARE CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS
28 OF 50 STATE HOUSES ARE CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS
THE RISING LEADERS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE PRIMARILY YOUNG, VIBRANT AND DIVERSE WHILE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS CONTROLLED BY NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID AND THE CLINTONS. WHO SAID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE PARTY OF OLD WHITE PEOPLE? SEEMS LIKE THE DEMS ARE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT IMAGE THAN THE REPUBLICANS.
Congressman Barber did the right thing for his constituents. He represents a district that is about 50/50 Republican/Democrat and I would venture to guess that the majority of all voters in his district are opposed to the gross over-reach of Obamacare. It appears that members of the Democratic party, particularly in the Senate, believe that Republicans shouldn't have a voice in how our government is run. They continue to cling to their sacred Obamacare without accepting even reasonable proposals on making the law fair and equitable to all. This is a law that was rammed down our throats through Congress purely on party line votes in the dead of the night using every legislative trick in the book including reconciliation, Cornhusker kickbacks, Louisiana purchase, etc. Next the President has taken the law and amended it many times with waivers, exemptions and delays by executive fiat bypassing the legislative process entirely and ignoring our duly elected Representatives and will of the people. And now the members of the Democratic Party who voted for sustaining the law as is, wonder why we still protest this monstrosity. This fight has nothing to do with racism or denying healthcare for those who need it. This fight has everything to do with protecting the basic freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years. We're tired of Washington D.C. politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists of both parties controlling our lives and jeopardizing the future of our children while not making a meaningful dent in solving the nation's problems. This status quo government by gridlock and partisan bickering has got to end. The system of checks and balances was embedded in our Constitution for a reason and was based on the premise that our elected representatives would work together to resolve their differences. THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN BARBER FOR STANDING UP FOR ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT JUST HARRY REID!
My wife and I would love 2 or 4 tickets for this Friday or Saturday night's game vs. the Zephyrs!
Thank you ic69hunter. Too often we hunters ignore or dismiss the attacks of the anti-hunting zealots as meaningless and ignorant and don't fight back. However, their words and actions may have consequences especially when they reach a largely uninformed public. Many of their well-intended actions to protect certain species can have unintended adverse consequences. Case in point is the issue of wolves. Wolves have no serious natural predators. Consequently, when afforded endangered species status they have re-populated quickly and now pose a threat to native species like big horn sheep and elk as well as livestock and humans in some western states.
One earlier poster refers to the International Wildlife Museum as the dead life museum. Using that logic to describe the museum, one could say the same about the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Unlike live animal zoos like Reid Park and the Desert Museum, facilities like the IWM allow people, especially families with children, to get a close-up view of the animals and even touch them where allowed to gain a hands on understanding of the animals' natural features. And unlike zoos, natural history museums like IWM don't hold live animals in captivity.
In the interest of full disclosure let me first state that I am a hunter and a very proud member of Safari Club International. Now a quote from the greatest conservationist in American history:
"In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination."
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1905
Tim Vanderpool's "editorial" on the International Wildlife Museum and Safari Club International is a complete embodiment of the ignorance President Roosevelt observed in his early 20th Century statement. Vanderpool states in a post above that he was unable to interview the director and deputy director of the museum to get their perspective but I doubt seriously anything they would have said could have changed his mind or altered his blatantly biased and inaccurate attack piece in any meaningful way. The poster adocus accurately addresses above the massive investment that hunters make for the benefit of wildlife and habitat conservation each year just in the U.S. But hunters also contribute significantly to the conservation of many species around the world, particularly Africa. Here's a link to the recent article featured in the New York Times written by Alexander N. Songorwa, Director of Wildlife for the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism:
In terms of bias by omission, Vanderpool neglected to state that the WWF (yes, the World Wildlife Fund) and 42 countries including Canada where polar bear hunting is a matter of survival for native Inuit populations, joined Safari Club at the recent CITES conference in Bangkok in defeating a ban on international polar bear trade. Below is a link to a recent article in National Geographic which accurately portrays the real threats to polar bears:
There are many other inaccuracies, errors and omissions in the article but hopefully I've made the point that legal hunting is in fact a protector of wildlife just as President Roosevelt made that point over a century ago. The International Wildlife Museum is dedicated to science-based sustainable use conservation and, to that end, serves an important mission in the Tucson community.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation