“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, January 19, 2015

Martin Luther King Jr gave this sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967



Martin Luther King's Speech Against the Vietnam War


by David Bromwich

One of the greatest speeches by Martin Luther King, Jr., "A Time to Break Silence," was delivered at Riverside Church, New York City, on April 4, 1967. It is a statement against war in principle, in the same sense in which King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," published four years earlier, had been a statement against social injustice in principle. Yet like that extraordinary earlier appeal, "A Time to Break Silence" is also addressed to the evils of a particular time and place. It protests the command and deployment by Lyndon Johnson of almost unlimited violence against the people and the land of Vietnam for the declared purpose of protecting them from the menace of world communism.
King began by acknowledging his solidarity with the organizers of Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam; and he pledged himself in full accord with their recent statement: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." In Vietnam, says King, that time has come for us."

Yet to support concrete acts of nonviolent protest or non-cooperation remains a difficult choice.

"Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world."
The trouble is all the greater in a case like this, where evil is on both sides but where America's violence has greatly exceeded that of the enemy, since American resources for violence through the use of air power are so much greater. In such a situation, says King,  e are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on."

This speech was King's public announcement of his opposition to the war. Moral protest, which said "The war is wrong," was still, as it would remain, very much a minority position. Even the tactical objection that said, "The war cannot be won," was still a marginal view, though now steadily gaining adherents. King knew that his uncompromising dissent would draw bitter attacks. Members of the black community would charge that by his new commitment he was diluting the single-minded pursuit of civil rights for which he was known to stand.  ome of us," he confesses, "who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak."

Here King arrives at the heart of his subject:

"Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: 'Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?' 'Why are you joining the voices of dissent?' 'Peace and civil rights don't mix,' they say. 'Aren't you hurting the cause of your people,' they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church – the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate – leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

His aim is to unite the protest against civil injustices with the protest against a policy of violence and domination abroad. You may (King seems to have thought) – you may, in some imagined logical universe, combine the domestic good and the foreign evil; but that is not how the minds and feelings of people in practice function. If it is logically possible to envisage a government that is wise and just to its own people while being cruel and oppressive toward others, still, in actuality this is not possible. It does not happen, because human nature is not formed for such double bookkeeping. People who fancy they can act the two parts at once are imagining a form of conduct beyond their psychological means.

King turns now to a practical observation. War is an enemy to the poor in America. By a terrible compensation we are sending blacks to fight in Vietnam when we cannot find jobs or justice for them at home. How can he preach non-violence in America while this process goes forward?

"For those who ask the question, 'Aren't you a civil rights leader?' and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: 'To save the soul of America.' We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
"O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath –
America will be!
"Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

Accordingly, he argues, it is fitting for him to dedicate part of his energy in the coming months to the protest against the war.

Some people thought his recent statements in criticism of American foreign policy were an abuse of the impartial honor of his Nobel Prize for Peace. A man so distinguished, they said, ought not to join a protest movement that might be seen as fractious or merely parochial. King replies now by saying that
"the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission – a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men – for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them?

And he goes on to explain his motives in explicitly Christian terms:
Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls  nemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

"And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

Thus in a way exceptional for an American, and for any social critic or prophet, King moved beyond a protest within his country to a work of conscience he knew must cross all national boundaries.

As Jesus Christ spoke from a care for what was done to  he least of these," King looks to a subject neglected by Americans: the history of suffering by the Vietnamese people.

"They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.

In a short summary, he recounts the history of the Vietnamese battle for independence from 1945 to 1965. What astonishes King about Americas conduct after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, is that, under cover of a client state with a sham democracy, we chose to make ourselves the successors of the departing French colonists:

"Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

"So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

"What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

Martin Luther King's striking comparison of the Americans in Vietnam to the Germans in Europe was "extreme" by the standards of American opinion in 1967; as it would be extreme in our own time to suggest that a similar comparison is warranted by the use of phosphorous bombs in the second siege of Fallujah and of psychotropic drugs on terrorist suspects in Guantanamo. To King, the truth of a perception mattered more than its happy or disagreeable effect on the listener. This comparison did not, in fact, constitute for him a special provocation. He presents it as matter of fact: a truth about the way power and technology, once possessed, are inevitably used in the modern age. The lights of perverted science assist the experiments and protract the dominance of a military power that recognizes no restraint.

But King also here implies a subtler thought – implies it so clearly that it need not be spoken. Unlimited power will do everything it can against those it has once dehumanized as a "total" enemy (an enemy that is a beast and also a thing). The brutalization of mind always takes place before the atrocity in which it proves itself. Nor is the capacity for such acts the attribute of a single nation or race. The same part of the mind that invented Zyklon B invented napalm. The same human nature that wanted to use the poison gas as soon as it saw the ingenuity of the thing also wanted to use the lethal burning jelly.

Destruction has its own momentum and its own fascination. Things built over ages can be made to vanish in an instant under its annihilating stroke. That is what happened to the ancient culture, the farms, and the forests of Vietnam under the unleashed assault of American air power – which, by the end of the war, would subject a country the size of Italy to more than three times the tonnage of bombs dropped in all of the Second World War.

"We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
"Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call 'fortified hamlets.' The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Thus far, the condemnation has been general, but King now moves to speak of the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam – both, in 1967, still considered off limits in public discussion, even though it was generally known that a negotiated settlement without their participation would be meaningless. Whatever our actions might say, American intentions, as all Americans agreed, were unselfish; and, though Vietnam might be the home of the Vietnamese, millions of them had been grossly deceived and misled. As for the North Vietnamese and the NLF, no good would ever come from them. Martin Luther King offered a radical challenge to each of these premises; yet the method (King believed) for showing America the false conceit of its innocence was to acknowledge the harm done to Vietnam alongside a catastrophe nearer to home. He speaks of what this war is doing to the American soldiers who have to fight it:

"I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

King ends this penultimate section by quoting a Buddhist leader who had once admired the United States but who, from his experience of the war, concluded that America could never again be a revolutionary country for freedom. Its fate after Vietnam would be chiefly to be known and feared for its relentless use of military power.

Having turned from inquest to prophecy, the speech concludes with five specific proposals. End the bombing; commit the U.S. to a unilateral cease-fire; curtail the build-up of American troops in Laos and Thailand; recognize the NLF as a legitimate party in negotiations; and set a date for withdrawal. It took enormous courage, a now almost unimaginable independence, for a leader so close to established opinion in America to say these things in April 1967. One year ahead lay the withdrawal of Lyndon Johnson from the presidential campaign of 1968, after a primary in New Hampshire in which the insurgent candidate, Eugene McCarthy, said far milder things about the Vietnam war than King in   Time to Break Silence."

How would our history, and Vietnam's, have changed had Martin Luther King's advice been followed in 1967? Many who are dead would have lived. An environment and a way of a life would have been spared a depth of destruction whose effects have yet to be fully measured. And the truth of the warning that followed his proposals would not have become a truth of history: that America (as King put it) was placing itself on the wrong side of the revolution for freedom throughout the world. He summoned the words of John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The truth of that axiom seems hardly to have diminished forty years later. With one notable difference: a substantial portion of American policy makers have now inherited the Jacobin and Soviet ambition to be the fomenters of violent revolution abroad.

We would know the great Riverside Church oration of April 1967 as the work only of an inspired reformer and protest leader – not of the moral leader that Martin Luther King always also was – had it closed with this comment regarding the ultimate cost of America's policy. Yet the speech looks beyond the Vietnam war and asks us to consider the wrong of war itself. An end to wars is a cause to which at least all Christians are called to dedicate themselves. For war is always the instrument of the powerful. It sharpens the sting of inequality, and by destruction it steals from the poor the lives they have built. As Christians, therefore,

"we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

The doctrine is Christian; and yet King in this speech made sure not to claim that it was exclusively Christian:

Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

Will Americans (King wondered) live according the morality of the Good Samaritan? Or will we continue on the path we have taken, and live by the ethics of the Caesars?

"There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: 'The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.'
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."
With that final evocation of crisis – adding some favorite verses from James Russell Lowell about the choices both men and countries face – King left his audience to their thoughts. One year, to the day, after he delivered this speech, on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was assassinated.

Ask an American about the anti-war speech in Riverside Church – as surprising in its range of thoughts and as closely argued as anything ever written or spoken by Martin Luther King – and you are likely to find only the vaguest of recognitions. Few know more than that there was such a speech. In fact, "A Time to Break Silence" marked a crossroads in the life of Martin Luther King. President Johnson never forgave him for breaking ranks; pro-war liberal Democrats afterward often dissociated themselves from his actions; and a large part of the civil rights movement deplored his stance as a violation of an unspoken contract. Civil rights, they thought, was about black Americans, and the cause of black Americans was civil rights. The violence of the cities had nothing to do with the violence of the war.

Even some advisers close to King, as Taylor Branch recounts in At Canaan's Edge, believed that the speech was impolitic – "too advanced," "not so balanced" as it should have been; while the political counselor of President Johnson, John P. Roche, wrote a confidential memorandum saying that King had "thrown in his lot with the commies." As for the press, the New York Times judged that King's protest against the war was "wasteful and self-defeating" and likely to be "disastrous for both causes." The Washington Post went further. It predicted that many who had once listened to King with respect "would never again accord him the same confidence"; and it concluded: "He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, and his people." Recall that, in his speech, King said that concern for black Americans had led him to concern for America as a whole, and for the people of the world. The Post, by its gesture of severance, was returning the black minister to  is people" with the considered judgment that he was no longer of much use even to them.

Martin Luther King was disturbed, but cannot have been surprised, by the tenor of these responses; and in a  ace to Face" television interview on July 28, when asked directly about the supposed contradiction between his efforts on behalf of civil rights and in the anti-war movement, he gave his reply:

"I have worked too long now, and too hard to get rid of segregation in public accommodations to turn back to the point of segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And wherever I see injustice, Im going to take a stand against it whether it's in Mississippi or in Vietnam."

He had said something like these words before, but never before so piercingly

Moral courage is rare. Still rarer is the courage to oppose a president who has helped your cause and the consensus of a party that has supported your cause. But in April 1967, King had reached a point where he knew that "silence is betrayal," and he knew that he had to act. He saw that conformity to the dogma of anti-communism had muffled free discussion in the United States; that the excuse of ideology had blinded Americans of all colors to the infectiousness of the violence we practiced. King's greatness, at that moment, did not take the form of simple civic courage, the performing of a public duty you have come to expect of yourself. Rather, his was that "more lonely courage" William James once spoke of – courage which shows itself in leaving a secure post and taking up one more exposed, because the time and place require your presence.

102 comments:

  1. We have learned nothing since he presented it: Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, nothing. It is sickening to watch it happen again and again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We can’t mind our own business.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martin, also was a huge friend of Israel said:

    when an African American student made a statement sharply critical of Zionists at a dinner in 1968, and King replied: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."[3]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, no link, no reference?

      Really "O"rdure ... such a disappointing performance.

      Delete
    2. Jack why are you such a lazy scoundrel?

      google it asshole

      Delete
    3. No need to Google what dos not exist, just another Zionist fabrication.
      Another set of lies.
      Even if it is there, in Google, you cannot validate it was said.

      That is the truth of your poor performance, "O"rdure.

      You claim that King said what he obviously did not, could not have said.
      You are a poor writer, :O:rdure.

      Delete
    4. What a hoot. King is dead but he certainly would not have been opposed to Nelson Mandela who said:

      Nelson Mandela

      Address by President Nelson Mandela at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

      4 December 1997, Pretoria

      Mr. Chairman;
      Mr. Suleyman al-Najab,
      Special Emissary of President Yasser Arafat;
      Members of the diplomatic corps;
      Distinguished Guests,

      We have assembled once again as South Africans, our Palestinian guests and as humanists to express our solidarity with the people of Palestine.

      I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the organisers of the event, particularly the United Nations Information Centre and the UNISA Centre for Arabic and Islamic Studies for this magnificent act of compassion, to keep the flames of solidarity, justice and freedom burning.

      The temptation in our situation is to speak in muffled tones about an issue such as the right of the people of Palestine to a state of their own. We can easily be enticed to read reconciliation and fairness as meaning parity between justice and injustice. Having achieved our own freedom, we can fall into the trap of washing our hands of difficulties that others faces.

      Yet we would be less than human if we did so.

      It behoves all South Africans, themselves erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice.

      Even during the days of negotiations, our own experience taught us that the pursuit of human fraternity and equality - irrespective of race or religion - should stand at the centre of our peaceful endeavours. The choice is not between freedom and justice, on the one hand, and their opposite, on the other. Peace and prosperity; tranquility and security are only possible if these are enjoyed by all without discrimination.

      It is in this spirit that I have come to join you today to add our own voice to the universal call for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

      We would be beneath our own reason for existence as government and as a nation, if the resolution of the problems of the Middle East did not feature prominently on our agenda.

      {...}


      Delete
    5. {...}

      When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.

      But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world.

      We are proud as a government, and as the overwhelming majority of South Africans to be part of an international consensus taking root that the time has come to resolve the problems of Palestine.

      Indeed, all of us marvelled at the progress made a few years ago, with the adoption of the Oslo Agreements. Leaders of vision, who saw problems not merely from the point of view of their own narrow constituency, had at least found a workable approach towards friendship and peaceful co-existence in the Middle East.

      I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these Palestinian and Israeli leaders. In particular, we pay homage to the memory of Yitshak Rabin who paid the supreme sacrifice in pursuit of peace.

      We are proud as humanists, that the international consensus on the need for the implementation of the Oslo Agreements is finding expression in the efforts of the multitude of Israeli and Palestinian citizens of goodwill who are marching together, campaigning together, for an end to prevarication. These soldiers of peace are indeed sending a message to us all, that the day is not far off, when Palestinian and Jewish children will enjoy the gay abandon of children of God in a peaceful and prosperous region.

      These soldiers of peace recognise that the world we live in is rising above the trappings of religious and racial hatred and conflict. They recognise that the spurning of agreements reached in good faith and the forceful occupation of land can only fan the flames of conflict. They know from their own experience that, it is in a situation such as this, that extremists on all sides thrive, fed by the blood lust of centuries gone by.

      These Palestinian and Israeli campaigners for peace know that security for any nation is not abstract; neither is it exclusive. It depends on the security of others; it depends on mutual respect and trust. Indeed, these soldiers of peace know that their destiny is bound together, and that none can be at peace while others wallow in poverty and insecurity.

      Thus, in extending our hands across the miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a humanity that is at one, that the time has come for progress in the implementation of agreements. The majority of the world community; the majority of the people of the Middle East; the majority of Israelis and Palestinians are suing for peace.

      But we know, Mr. Chairman, that all of us need to do much much more to ensure that this noble ideal is realised.

      {...}

      Delete
    6. {...}

      As early as February 1995, our government formalised its relations with the State of Palestine when we established full diplomatic relations. We are proud of the modest technical assistance that our government is offering Palestine in such areas as Disaster Management, women`s empowerment and assistance to handicapped children. But the various discussions with our counterparts in Palestine are an indication that we can do more.

      We need to do more as government, as the ANC and other parties, as South Africans of all religious and political persuasions to spur on the peace process. All of us should be as vocal in condemning violence and the violation of human rights in this part of the world as we do with regard to other areas. We need to send a strong message to all concerned that an attempt by anyone to isolate partners in negotiations from their own mass base; and attempt to co-opt tes is bound to hurt the peace process as a whole.

      We must make our voices heard calling for stronger action by world bodies as well as those states that have the power, to act with the same enthusiasm in dealing with this deadlock as they do on other problems in the Middle East.

      Yes, all of us need to do more in supporting the struggle of the people of Palestine for self-determination; in supporting the quest for peace, security and friendship in this region.

      But at least we can draw comfort from the fact that, our meeting today is yet another small expression of our empathy.

      We hope that, by this humble act, we are strengthening the voice of peace and friendship in Israel and Palestine; so that, as we enter the new millennium, we shall all have taken a giant stride towards a world in which our humanity will be the hallmark of our relations across colour, religious and other divides.

      I thank you.

      Nelson Mandela

      Delete
    7. I can just see Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King being with the fat ass popcorn lawn-chairs cheering the bombing and the killing of the Palestinians by the heroic IDF.

      Delete
    8. Well Nelson Mandela supported "necklacing" his enemies.

      I can see him supporting Hamas bombing Israeli civilians and celebrating when Jews were hit.

      As for MLK? I can see how if his people had been bombed for a decade with hundreds of rockets a day might sip a cocktail with his girlfriend while those that did the bombing were attacked back...

      Back at ya. De-ce.

      Delete
    9. The ANC is a great topic, let's talk about what they did...

      Delete
  4. .. letter falsely attributed to Martin Luther King, ... "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti ...

    "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" is an open letter falsely attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr. that expressed support for Zionism and declared that "anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."[1] The letter has been widely quoted on the internet and in a speech of the politician Ariel Sharon. The proclaimed sources of the letter, like an appearance in the Saturday Review from August 1967, do not exist. The first known reference to the text appeared 1999, over thirty years after King's death.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell us, "O"rdure do you ever just feel, well, stupid?
      If not, you should.

      Delete
    2. Even when offered an out, "O"rdure prefers to "Go Down with the Ship".

      As long as it is not the "Patra", that could be deadly.

      Delete
    3. Zionists murder civilians, Jewish refugees in a False Flag operation

      On Nov. 25, 1940, a boat carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe,
      exploded and sank off the coast of Palestine killing 252 people.

      The Zionist “Haganah” claimed the passengers committed suicide to protest British refusal to let them land.
      Years later, it admitted that rather than let the passengers go to Mauritius, it blew up the vessel for its propaganda value.

      “Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many,”
      Moshe Sharett, a former Israeli Prime Minister said at memorial service in 1958.



      http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2013/03/zionists-led-jews-to-annihilation-in-ww2-2447940.html

      Delete
  5. I didn't think it was such a good speech.

    He made better ones.

    The problems the West is facing today are from the Moslem world.

    The lessons that are 'drawn' from that speech may well be the opposite of the correct lessons.

    ........

    d. rat has certainly been passing am immense amount of gas lately, my goodness sakes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      The lessons that are 'drawn' from that speech may well be the opposite of the correct lessons.

      May well be? Correct lessons? The sentence above tells us nothing.

      MLK was at least specific on his beliefs.

      .

      Delete
    2. You mean, he wanted the boat people?

      He wanted the re-education camps?

      Is that what you mean?

      Specific, like that?

      Nitwit.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. .

      Obviously, you can't read a simple article in English and decipher its meaning.

      Obviously, you can't read a simple two line post and decipher the point being made.

      Heck, you could be an English major.

      .

      Delete
  6. B.C. begins to hunt wolves by helicopter in order to save endangered mountain caribou herds

    The Alberta government has had a similar program in place for almost a decade

    By James Keller, THE CANADIAN PRESS January 16, 2015

    [Pin It]
    13


    Story
    Photos ( 2 )


    B.C. begins to hunt wolves by helicopter in order to save endangered mountain caribou herds

    The British Columbia government plans to kill as many as 184 wolves in an attempt to save five dwindling mountain caribou herds.
    Photograph by: Nature Conservancy of Canada.

    VANCOUVER — Government-contracted hunters were in helicopters over two regions of British Columbia on Thursday as the province launched a controversial culling program that will sacrifice as many as 184 wolves this year alone in an attempt to save endangered caribou.

    The province announced a plan to immediately start killing wolves during the next four years in the South Peace region, located in northern B.C., and in the South Selkirk region along the border with Washington state and Idaho.

    The areas are home to dwindling caribou herds, and the government insists that thinning out the wolf population is a viable solution to protect the herds and allow their numbers to increase. The Alberta government has had a similar program in place for almost a decade.

    But B.C.'s plan faced immediate resistance from environmentalists, who condemned such mass culls as inhumane and ineffective while accusing the government of ignoring the habitat degradation at the heart of the caribou's plight.

    Tom Ethier, an assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, said a wolf cull is the only way to have an immediate impact on the caribou population.

    "Some of the modelling we've done here is that by removing wolves, removing this predation risk for these two areas, we can get an increase of around 10 per cent per year over the next number of years," Ethier said in an interview.

    He said the plan has been reviewed by outside experts.

    The South Selkirk herd had just 18 caribou by March of last year — down from 46 in 2009.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the South Peace region, there are roughly 950 caribou in seven herds, the government said. The province's goal is to increase that number to more than 1,200 within 21 years.

      Ethier said there is adequate land and food to support the caribou population, but he said changes related to forestry, roads and other development have fragmented the habitat while making it easier for wolves to hunt.

      The province says its long-term focus is to protect and restore habitat. That has included protecting high-elevation caribou habitat, requiring it to be set aside to offset development and restrictions on logging, road building and recreational activity such as snowmobiling in habitat areas.

      However, Ethier said it will be decades before such measures have a significant impact on the caribou.

      "We think we've set the table for caribou recovery, but we've got this challenge with this immediate threat of predation," he said.

      A study published last year examined a culling program in Alberta, where almost 1,000 wolves have been killed since 2006 on the range of the Little Smoky herd, a small group of caribou in the west-central part of the province.

      Researchers concluded the cull, which involved shooting wolves from helicopters or poisoning them, stabilized the caribou herd and likely prevented them from being wiped out of the area.

      Paul Paquet, a biology professor who also works with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, suggested the cull would be ineffective because habitat loss, not wolves, are driving the caribou's decline.

      "These caribou are on a long-term slide to extinction as a consequence of what people have done, and that's clearly where the blame should go," Paquet said.

      "I think the provinces have been unwilling to do what would have been absolutely necessary to do to save caribou, and that was to protect their habitat initially. You can't easily recover the habitat that it's lost."

      Officials in B.C. also plan to use the cull to study the effectiveness of such a program. A large herd in the South Peace region won't be protected through the wolf cull, which will allow researchers to compare that population with herds on ranges where wolves were killed.

      Paquet questioned the ethics of shooting wolves from helicopters to conduct research.

      "It doesn't satisfy the need for humane killing and that's real problematic," he said.

      Ethier, the assistant deputy minister, defended the government's methods.

      "We think by hiring experienced pilots and experienced sharp shooters that this is the most humane way to remove wolves," he said.
      © Copyright (c)

      Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/begins+hunt+wolves+helicopter+order+save+endangered+mountain+caribou+herds/10732155/story.html#ixzz3PJWD9N3q

      Delete
    2. You moron, Quirk.

      Delete
    3. It's just amazing, is it not, that for thousands of years the wolves could never "eradicate" the caribou - but, now, they're going to?

      Delete
    4. You would have to be dumber than a "white supremacist" Idaho hick to believe that.

      Delete
  7. WiO,

    Are Iran and Israel, officially, at war? Has Israel actually declared war on Iran, or Iran on Israel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ash if someone said to you, "Ash, I want you dead dead dead and I intend to kill you" what would that mean to you?

      Delete
    2. Was MLK dead in 1999, or did he write that letter "O"rdue was quoting from an opened casket?

      Delete
    3. We would want to get that quote quantified, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      Learn if the speaker had capacity, first and foremost, to make the threat viable.
      Or if they were merely vocalizing their discontent with a political outcome.

      Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson advocated for murdering, butchering and then cannibalizing over 6 million US residents, think he was serious?

      Delete
    4. Jack HawkinsMon Jan 19, 06:56:00 PM EST
      Was MLK dead in 1999, or did he write that letter "O"rdue was quoting from an opened casket?

      Jack, you are pathetic.

      Really, my quote wasn't a letter...

      try google. stay away from "arab-nazis-lovers.com"

      Delete
  8. You f...... MORON,Quirk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Is that an approved AIPAC spelling?

      :o)

      .

      Delete
    2. No Quirk, If AIPAC were to call you a fucking moron they would say "Quirk is a fucking moron". However I have it on GOOD authority it was NOT an AIPAC action in any way shape or form :)

      Delete
  9. .

    The US has gone on high alert in Yemen as fighting continues there.

    Last year, Obama told us that Yemen was a success story, an example of successful US policy and strategy in the region.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was then, this is now?

      Ebb and flow?

      Delete
    2. Mr Obama, who is obviously not the President of Yemen, may not have had the 'real' street skivvy about what was happening, there..

      Delete
    3. .

      Yemen is just one more example of why the US should not be engaging militarily in the ME. MLK was right. This was a lesson we should have learned after Vietnam.

      I assume the statement that there will be no ISIS in Iraq at some future date is merely hyperbole. While they may be diminished or even evolve into a group using another name (they have already called themselves a number of different names) they will not be gone, especially as long as they have a base in Syria.

      Now that we are there, our best option is to try to get out as quickly as possible without losing too much face and before we manage to screw things up.

      ...may not have had the 'real' street skivvy about what was happening, there..

      How many times must we hear this? We didn't even know the USSR was nearing collapse until it happened. That's a pretty big miss. It's hard to get 'real' street skivvy from 30,000 feet or from looking through a video console.

      Is it really all that intelligent to continue getting involved in the countries of the ME when we don't have the 'real' street skivvy?

      My objection to the US getting involved in the ME is not just one of principle but also one of pragmatism. Over the past few decades, the US has proven itself incompetent to manage these type of extended conflicts. We invariably end up doing more harm than good.

      .

      Delete
    4. Yemen, rat doctrine FAIL.

      Delete
    5. Really?
      What ground forces is the Coalition or the US singularly supporting with Close Air Support?
      When and where?

      Delete
    6. As to whether or not the US should be involved in Yemen, the jury is still out.

      When you say ...
      We invariably end up doing more harm than good.
      Could you qualify that?
      Harm to whom?

      Delete
    7. While the oil still flows and the economy of the world stumbles along, with the standard of living improving all across the world.
      More often than not.

      Delete
    8. .

      While the oil still flows and the economy of the world stumbles along, with the standard of living improving all across the world.
      More often than not.


      You live by the non-sequitur, rat. What the hell has that to do with us getting involved in the ME?

      .

      Delete
    9. Everything. Absolutely, totally Everything.

      Delete
    10. .

      .

      When you say ...
      We invariably end up doing more harm than good.
      Could you qualify that?
      Harm to whom?


      Jeez, rat, try to pay attention. How many times do we have to describe our participation in the creation of failed states, the thousands of people, ours and theirs, killed and maimed, the millions turned in refugees, the $ trillions wasted from our interventions in the ME and Africa?

      .

      Delete
    11. You really don't believe that our involvement in the ME is all about the oil?

      Really?

      :)

      Delete
    12. .

      You are starting to sound like Obumble. You offer me non-sequiturs like the rat.

      Regardless our rationale for being in the ME, the results as noted above are evident.

      .

      Delete
    13. Let me get this straight. :)

      My contention that "we are involved in the ME because of the oil" is a Non Sequitur?

      Are you sure Non Sequitur means what you think it means?

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. .

      The success or failure of our recent 'military interventions' in the ME, which is what rat and I were arguing about, is independent of our reasons for being in the ME, be they 'oil', or 'spreading democracy', or 'humanitarian reasons'.

      I argue our 'military interventions' there have been ham-handed, destructive, and unnecessary, costing an inordinate price in lives and treasure, ours and theirs, and leaving behind a string of failed states. I argue those military interventions have cost the US in terms of image and respect in the world.

      You state the US is in the ME because of oil. Well gee.

      .

      Delete
    16. But, is my statement a "non-sequitur?"

      Delete
    17. Okay, I'll make it easy for you. My statement is Not a non-sequitur; we can move on, now.

      Delete
    18. .

      Yes it was, the discussion was about 'should' we be in the ME.

      Your comment was a simple statement of 'why' we were/are in the ME and as such was a non-sequitur.

      Had you argued that we were in the ME because of oil AND that that reason justified our military interventions you would have in effect joined the argument. In that case, your comment would NOT have been a non-sequitur.

      As it is, the comment was merely a well worn factoid.

      And a non-sequitur.

      :o)

      .

      Delete
  10. There is one simple truth about Yemen that you can take to the bank.

    It lies right South of Saudi Arabia, and the most prolific oil fields on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      How ironic.

      The greatest purveyor and promoter of radical Islam may get its ass burned by ...gulp...radical Islam.

      He who lives by the sword...

      .

      Delete
  11. AshMon Jan 19, 06:49:00 PM EST
    WiO,

    Are Iran and Israel, officially, at war? Has Israel actually declared war on Iran, or Iran on Israel?



    Ash, are you for real? Really?

    Are you serious?

    Iran spends several billion dollars a year trying to arm, train and start proxy wars with Israel thru numerous allies and proxies.

    Why are you so ignorant?

    Are you this dumb in real life?

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I grew up there were maybe 2500 Mountain Caribou up in that area.

    Turn if over to idiots like Quirk from Detroit and Deuce from Philly and a generation later you got 18.

    ............

    New computer setup......that's why the anon

    Seattle - what a GREAT game yesterday !!!!!!!

    Casino time....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18 may seen like a lot to a guy like Quirk who can't count very high, but it isn't really very many.

      Delete
    2. .

      How many more times are you going to use the excuse "It's the computer's fault?"

      .

      Delete
    3. Failure to take personal responsibility, a life long challenge for Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      Delete
    4. .

      18?

      How about 8? Recently read that is what the Isle Royale wolf pack is down to. No doubt it is the fault of the Moose.

      .

      Delete
    5. Good shooting !!

      Delete
    6. That's less than two hands, Quirk.

      Delete
  13. Jack HawkinsMon Jan 19, 05:41:00 PM EST
    .. letter falsely attributed to Martin Luther King, ... "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti ...

    "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" is an open letter falsely attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr. that expressed support for Zionism and declared that "anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."[1] The letter has been widely quoted on the internet and in a speech of the politician Ariel Sharon. The proclaimed sources of the letter, like an appearance in the Saturday Review from August 1967, do not exist. The first known reference to the text appeared 1999, over thirty years after King's death.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend

    Reply
    Replies

    Jack HawkinsMon Jan 19, 05:41:00 PM EST
    Tell us, "O"rdure do you ever just feel, well, stupid?
    If not, you should.



    actually Its you that is stupid.

    the quote about the letter is not my reference, but rather what wa actually said.

    The letter may have been based on a statement attributed to King at a dinner event in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[2] According to Seymour Martin Lipset, an African American student made a statement sharply critical of Zionists at a dinner that Lipset recalled as having taken place in 1968, and King replied: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."[3]


    Learn to read the entire paragraph you fucking jew hating asshole.

    so quick to be right? and yet you are just a fucking moron...

    LOL

    Jack "I am a DUMB ASS" Hawkins can't even get it right when he cuts and pastes..

    ReplyDelete
  14. based on a statement attributed to King at a dinner event in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[2] According to Seymour Martin Lipset, an African American student made a statement sharply critical of Zionists at a dinner that Lipset recalled as having taken place in 1968, and King replied: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."[3]


    LOL

    Letter my ass, Jack is wrong again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not wrong, at all, "O"rdure.

      You are a known and repeated liar, you have been caught, once again.

      Delete
    2. Jack, caught again in a mistake and you can't admit you were served...

      LOL

      Fucking moron.

      Delete
    3. The only mistake was that you did not reference the MLK quote.
      You did not do it, because it was, is a fraud.

      Like everything you do.

      Delete
  15. Deuce brings up Nelson Mandela, a convicted terrorist and member in good standing of the ANC.

    I guess these are Deuce's type of pals.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not like Begin and Ben-Gurion?

      Come on, "O"rdure, the Zionists in Palisrael were all terrorists.
      Killing Jews, when it served their purposes.

      Delete
    2. Finally, in "Shabtai Tzvi", Labor Zionism and the Holocaust, which was published also by Modiin, Barry Chamish writes (on pg. 232) that, about a year before he became Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon said that had Jabotinsky been head of the Jewish Agency instead of Ben-Gurion, millions of Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust.

      "Perfidy, The Transfer Agreement", and "The Scared And The Doomed" are accurate books (which were created by Jewish people, not anti-Semite bigots) that detail how Labor Zionism prevented the rescue of European Jewry.


      http://firstlightforum.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/zionists-collaborate-with-hitler-to-squeeze-the-lesser-jews-into-palestine/

      Delete
  16. You better read up on your history. Mandela was a convicted terrorist, convicted by an apartheid regime whom he was waging war against. Mandela received more than 260 awards over 40 years, most notably the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. None from Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not attend the memorial service for Mandela citing financial and security reasons. He had no problem elbowing his way into Paris where he was invited to stay away.

      Delete
    2. I am hardly alone in believing that Israel practices apartheid and doubt that Martin Luther King would approve of Israeli behavior towards minorities. Henry Siegman, former director of the American Jewish Congress, called West Bank settlements an “irreversible colonial project”. Siegman said Israel has “crossed the threshold from ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ to the only apartheid regime in the Western world”. Palestinians amounts to a "double disenfranchisement", which when based on ethnicity amounts to racism. Siegman also stated that keeping Palestinians “behind checkpoints and barbed wire fences” is the opposite of democracy. I suppose he is also a known anti-semite.

      Delete
    3. Deuce, you bring up many issues in that paragraph.

      I don't have the time to address them all.

      But Mandela? Was a killer. A cold blooded killer while in prison was offered a deal and he took it.

      As for you accusation that Israel practices "apartheid"? It's ludicrous, and is offensive to those that actually lived thru it, but that doesn't stop you.

      Just because you can find self hating Jews or nitwits that are Jewish doesn't mean they are "anti-semites" however they can and are wrong.

      In the end, you have made it clear there is only one solution for the Jews or Israel, Fight to live or be slaughtered and die.

      I'd rather have you hate me and live than have your respect and be another dead Jew...

      :)

      Delete
    4. I prefer my people alive. All of them.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Who are "your" people?

      It's clear that you do not wish for the Jews of America or Israel to live.

      Sorry Deuce, we will not comply.

      Delete
    7. You are a whack job, "O"rdure.

      You and the truth never do meet.

      Delete
    8. Jack, stop projecting. You are the blog's official liar.

      You and deuce are clear in your intent.

      I just called you out.

      You are a racist, jew hating piece of shit...

      Delete
    9. You may have called, but you have not said anything, "O"rdure.

      Your quote of MLK was a complete fraud, a fabrication, typical of Zionists, they live a lie.
      Their lives are lies, their history is a lie, they are the masters of projection.

      Delete
    10. As for hating Jews, you cannot even define what makes a person a Jew.
      So how can they be hated?

      No, "O"rdure, your lies have caught up to you.
      You have made a complete fool of yourself, today, with MLK.

      Delete
  17. False Flag Attacks By Zionists Against Jews

    Baghdad 1950. Paris 2015?

    Naeim Giladi wrote Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/14/false-flag-attacks-by-zionists-against-fellow-jews/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Listen to these morons...........

    They voted for it .....



    The caribou question

    Story
    Commenting (1)

    ShareShare
    Print
    Create a hardcopy of this page
    Font Size:
    Default font size
    Larger font size

    Posted: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:15 am | Updated: 10:26 am, Fri Nov 16, 2012.

    By ANTHONY McDERMOTT/Special to The Press | 1 comment

    The recent proposal presented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate 375,562 acres of critical habitat for Southern Selkirk Mountain Caribou in North Idaho and Northeastern Washington has generated consternation and a great deal of controversy.

    Defenders of Wildlife, Selkirk Conservation Alliance and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the USFWS to designate critical habitat for the species and according to a 2009 court ordered settlement agreement the service must designate critical habitat with a final rule by Nov. 20, 2012. The public's concern about losing access to Federal property for recreation to benefit this endangered species is real and must be dealt with in a transparent, straightforward manner.

    Southern Mountain caribou from this herd have been listed as an endangered species since 1984 and despite two attempted augmentations, a lot of time, money and management effort, the Canadian-shared Southern Selkirk population of caribou has all but winked out on the U.S. side of the border. Why has the population failed to respond to extensive management efforts for the past 25-plus years?

    Habitat changes, including the changes brought by the Sundance and Trapper Peak burns back in the 1960s, have reduced the amount of older forest stands suitable for caribou. Additionally, Selkirk caribou is a species existing at the very southern end of their range, spending very little time south of the B.C. border. The greatest cause of mortality over the past three decades has been predation, primarily by mountain lions. The recent resurgence of wolves as a top level predator poses a new and significant risk; wolves are the primary predator of mountain caribou elsewhere in their range. Designation of critical habitat provides little if any benefit to caribou if predation is what drives the population growth of this herd.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A well respected trapper from the Priest Lake area reported last week that he was pursuing six different packs of wolves on the Priest River side of the Selkirk Crest. A hunter doing some pre-season scouting for mule deer in August 2011 from the Upper Pack River reported observing a pack of 11 wolves harassing a small band of elk. Wolf packs exist on the east side of the Selkirks as well. Fifty-plus wolves in addition to mountain lions, grizzly bears and lots of black bears that are all capable of eating caribou. Now you begin to understand the magnitude of the problem and why people are howling about the possibility of additional Federal land use restrictions for habit that may never see a caribou.

    Without public support the entire ESA process is doomed to failure. With respect to caribou, the jig is up. The public has this figured out and it's not pretty. They are correct in their analysis that the likelihood of recovering caribou in the U.S. portion of the Selkirks is slim at best. The deck is stacked against them and designation of critical habitat is not going to change that.

    If this issue cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of our affected publics we are all wasting our time. This exceptionally small population of mountain caribou has only a slim hope of recovery as it is, but even less so if the people who live, work and play in and around their habitat view this animal as undesirable and problematic. That's exactly what will happen if restrictions that don't make sense are forced on people in the name of caribou recovery. The thought adding additional restrictions on 300,000-plus acres in North Idaho for a species that will not benefit from the designation of critical habitat appears to me and other folks following the issue to be foolish.

    How do we get out of the current mess that we are in? For starters, suggest that the USFWS critically review what it is that they are attempting to do given the status of predators as described above. If we cannot create an environment in which this small population (30-50) mountain caribou, that spend very little time south of the Canadian border, has a chance of recovery, it is simply time to look at other alternatives.

    The courts have ordered that critical habitat is the direction the USFWS needs to take. Given that direction, it would seem to make sense to zero in on those areas that research has shown are most important for caribou, rather than taking a very "broad brush" approach as the current proposal does. If caribou recovery is to have a chance, the situation suggests that more draconian predator management practices are needed in the caribou recovery zone. Who will pay for that? IDFG has and will continue to aggressively manage mountain lions populations, and has created liberal seasons for harvesting wolves, but that may not be enough.

    Wolf densities that are currently present are unacceptable and must be dealt with if we are going to save this species. This will require USFWS agreement and support for managing wolves differently in the Selkirk range. Environmental activists who advocate for caribou recovery but oppose predator management will have to realistically assess their positions. Without the support of the public who lives in and around the caribou recovery zone it's a lost cause.

    Tony McDermott is Panhandle IDFG Commissioner and KVRI Board Member.

    http://www.cdapress.com/news/outdoors/article_0135f264-8dd4-57e6-97e0-917d2f9cac58.html


    IT'S TIME TO BRING IN THE HEAVY THINKERS FROM BACK EAST

    ReplyDelete
  20. NO WAIT, THAT'S WHAT GO US IN THIS PICKLE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    ReplyDelete
  21. If you can't manage a caribou herd you sure can't manage the foreign policy of the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ASTRONOMERS: Two more planets in our Solar System...

    Earth-sized...

    Mysterious cosmic radiowaves captured live for first time...drudge

    ReplyDelete
  23. January 19, 2015
    Jane Fonda regrets 'Hanoi Jane' activities that made her unpopular
    By Thomas Lifson

    Media, even conservative media, are characterizing Jane Fonda’s remarks Friday as an “apology” for her actions in Vietnam. Most notoriously, she posed with an anti-aircraft gun crew who were shooting down American planes, clearly aligning herself with people who were killing Americans in combat (which, by the way, arguably fits the definition of treason, for which she was never prosecuted).

    Based on the AP report of her remarks, I am not so sure it was an apology:

    Fonda told the audience she made a "huge mistake'' that led many to think she was against soldiers fighting in Vietnam, and it's something that she'll take to her grave. She says she understands their anger and that it makes her sad.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/jane_fonda_regrets_hanoi_jane_activities_that_made_her_unpopular.html#ixzz3PK6JkfNp
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    ReplyDelete
  24. Really, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, you are losing it.
    The "Draft Dodger" is now channeling Jane Fonda, how quaint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck off, War Criminal.

      God you passed a lot of gas today.

      Really stunk the place up.

      Delete
    2. Lentil soup last night?

      Delete
    3. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, the answer, nope.

      As for the smell, that is your cat, pissin' on your slippers.

      Delete
    4. What war?
      What crime?
      Indicted by whom?

      Delete
    5. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, standing shoulder to shoulder with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, accusing US soldiers of being criminals, and worse.

      Delete
    6. Of course, that is not what I said.

      I accuse YOU of be a war criminal, and worse.

      G'nite

      Delete
  25. I argue our 'military interventions' there have been ham-handed, destructive, and unnecessary, costing an inordinate price in lives and treasure, ours and theirs, and leaving behind a string of failed states. I argue those military interventions have cost the US in terms of image and respect in the world.

    have been ham-handed - agreed.
    destructive, - agreed
    and unnecessary - disagree
    costing an inordinate price in lives and treasure, ours and theirs, - agreed, which is why the US has shifted tactics and is now utilizing local forces instead of US troops. Saving lives and treasure.
    leaving behind a string of failed states - yep, states that were opposed to US interests have now failed. Their replacements, not able to mount a threat to US interests.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      None of those states represented a threat to US interest. Zip. Zero. Nada.

      .

      Delete