Walmart: Capitalist Icon by Peter Burrows   elburropete@gmail.com 5/5/15

I have Facebook-friended a very liberal friend of mine and it’s been a real education. It seems as though she and I live in different worlds.  Our opinions differ, sometimes 180 degrees, on welfare, national defense, unions, property rights, government spending, education, and all sorts of things.

Perhaps nothing symbolizes our differences more than Walmart, the retail giant liberals love to hate.  She recently shared a post that purported to show how Walmart is scamming America by, first, paying low wages which forces their employees to get food stamps.  Second, Walmart then exploits tax loopholes to avoid paying billions in taxes that support food stamps which are, third, redeemed at Walmart to the tune of an estimated $13 billion a year, from which Walmart reaps “billions in profit –.” http://www.jwj.org/walmarts-food-stamp-scam-explained-in-one-easy-chart

The responses to this posting were very gratifying to those of us who think most liberals are a bunch of emoters who don’t have any brains.  “F— Walmart” responded one.  He went on to add, “I hope the board of directors all get cancer terminal cancer (sic).”  Another: “Close all of them!” Others: “I detest Walmart” – “Add it to my list why I hate Walmart.” – “Walmart just plain SUCKS on SO many levels!” – “Yet another reason why I NEVER enter a Walmart store!”

A couple of quick observations.  First, if there are tax loopholes for Walmart to “exploit,” whose fault is that? Is Walmart doing anything illegal? By the way, Walmart’s tax rate was 32% in fiscal year 2015, amounting to $8 billion in taxes.  Second, Walmart’s after-tax profit margin was 3.37%, which when applied to the estimated $13 billion in food stamps allegedly spent at Walmart, amounts to only $438 million of profits, a tidy sum but not quite the “billions in profit’ the article claims.

More fundamental problems with the article and its responders have to do with their mistaken vision of how the world works.  As someone who has in the last ten years both worked FOR Walmart in a part-time job and now works AT Walmart in a part-time job for one of their vendors (Hallmark), I think I can bring a little reality into their world

First, let me say I didn’t like working for Walmart, and it wasn’t so much the low pay as it was the constant schedule changes that are a fact of life for any 24-7 retailer. Having said that, a young person just starting out who is hard working, conscientious and willing to work a flexible schedule will find Walmart offering better paying opportunities very quickly.

In fact, working for Walmart can be a great career for those with no better, or more pleasant, careers to pursue.  I see the beggars on the highway at the Walmart exit and I have to wonder: Is that what my liberal friends would prefer young people to do?

Still, the retail business is tough, and Walmart is always pushing to get more production out of its workforce. This has led to some veteran employees leaving for better paying or less stressful jobs. One assistant department manager recently approached me about working for Hallmark, but was aghast that her starting pay would be only about $9 per hour.  Since Walmart was paying her $18 an hour, there was no way she’d make that move.

This illustrates a couple of real-world facts the moronic Walmart haters apparently can’t grasp. One, not all the employees at Walmart are low-paid food stamp recipients.  Two, and most importantly, WALMART DOES NOT FORCE ANYONE TO WORK FOR THEM.  Walmart’s employees are free to get better jobs if and when the opportunities arise, something they do all the time. On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that many of Walmart’s critics would use plenty of force to shut down Walmart if they could.

Of course, many of us think any job is better than no job, but that opinion is not shared by “progressives” who think Walmart el al should pay a “living wage.”  Such people are free to invest their own money and to tap into the vast array of progressive billionaires for the capital to start a chain to compete with Walmart, one that would pay what they think is a living wage.  But that would take work. That would mean DOING something, putting a little skin in the game.  Much easier to take the highly visible “I care” moral high ground and simply not shop at Walmart, which only hurts the very employees they are concerned about, or pass living wage laws, which also hurt those very same employees.

Walmart’s critics frequently say that Walmart “creates poverty” with its low paying jobs, but a just released BLS study shows that almost one in five families has NO job holder.  Seems to me that “no job” is more of a poverty creator than a Walmart job, many of which pay pretty well.

In fact, Walmart alleviates poverty.  Years ago, the little Wisconsin town I lived in had the opportunity for a Walmart store but the city leaders turned it down, thinking it would be ecologically damaging and only spread poverty with its supposedly low paying jobs. So I did a little survey comparing the grocery prices at the two local supermarkets vs. those in a Walmart store some thirty miles away.  I didn’t price produce or meat, and I didn’t count anything on sale at Walmart. The result: My basket of goods cost between 14 and 15 percent less at Walmart.

That’s how capitalism works, folks. Competition drives down prices, the customers benefit and the owners of the successful enterprises sometimes get rich.

Question for all those busybody morons who think they are occupying the moral high ground by being Walmart critics:  What have you ever done to help poor people that is even a millionth of the benefit poor people get by buying their groceries at Walmart?

Back to the lady who inquired about working for Hallmark.  Her husband also has a job, and while I don’t know what it pays, I suspect they are doing pretty well.   A two-job family may not fit the Cosmic vision of how the world should work to the Walmart haters, but who made them God?

Slandering The Prophet by Peter Burrows 4/26/15 elburropete@gmail.com

SLANDER: Verb: 1. Make false and damaging statements about (someone).   Synonyms: defame (someone’s character), blacken someone’s name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone’s reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint, malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate –

President Obama is not shy about displaying his ignorance of Islam.  I discussed his appalling assertion that Iran wouldn’t obtain  nuclear weapon because “it would be contrary to their faith” in “Move Over Neville Chamberlain.”  (Libertarian Leanings, 4/6/15.)

He’s made other statements that also boggle the mind, such as: “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”(1)  If a Republican president had been guilty of such historical illiteracy, The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media would have ridiculed him for months.

Then there’s this whopper: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”(2)

I’ve been thinking about how one could slander Muhammad given Muhammad’s well documented history. For instance, after the successful raid on the Jewish village of Khaybar, a village leader refused to reveal where any village treasures were hidden, so Muhammad said to one of his men: Torture him until you extract what he has” so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead.”

Muhammad allowed one of his men to chop off the dying man’s head, not as an act of mercy but as revenge for the death of the head chopper’s brother. (3)

Muhammad then proceeded to marry the dead man’s newly made widow. I suppose you could call that an act of compassion. She was probably really ugly.  Right.   (Muhammad had a lot of wives. Allah gave him special permission to have more than the customary four.(4) )

A raid against another Jewish village, Banu Qurayza, ended with the execution of all the male prisoners, apparently by Muhammad himself: “Then he sent for them and struck off their heads — as they were brought out to him in batches.  — There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.”(5)

You think “Struck off their heads,” was Seventh Century butchery and couldn’t happen today?  If you think that, you’re not paying attention.

The above examples are just two of many that have knowledgeable and decent people fervently hoping the future will not belong to those who PRAISE the prophet of Islam.   Unfortunately, the Koran commands all Muslims to do just that: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.”(6)

Question: When does ignorance morph into stupidity?  Intoxicated with his moral certitude, the President seems incapable of realizing he is wrong about  Islam. (Or anything else.) How many times must terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” while they’re killing people before he understands the reality of Islam?

It may never happen. In the meantime, I’ve thought of a few slanderous things to say about Muhammad the Prophet.   Obama might not “get it,“ but I know my readers will.

Muhammad:
-loved the Jews
-opposed slavery
-believed women should have equal rights with men
-taught tolerance toward all religions
-strongly believed in monogamy
-counseled peace with unbelievers, not war
-loved music
-encouraged artistic expressions that glorified Islam
-was humble and modest
-treated prisoners with compassion and mercy
-forgave those who criticized himself or his teachings

Those were off the top of my head. If anybody has any more “slanders,” please email them to me as I plan to expand the list, fully realizing that the future could be at stake.

(1) White House speech during conference on violent extremism. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/20/obama-islam-woven-into-the-fabric-of-our-country-since-founding/
(2) Address to the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012.
(3) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad,  A. Guillaume translation, Oxford University Press, 1967, pg. 515.
(4) The Qur’an, translated by Abdulla Yusuf Ali, sura 33.50
(5) Ibn Ishaq, ibid pg. 464.
(6) The Qur’an, ibid sura 33.21

Global warming, where is thy sting? By Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com April 18, 2015

As much of the nation shakes off another miserable winter, which set records for cold and snow in many areas, the President of the United States and other assorted warmists continue to sound the alarm over the catastrophic effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is what President Obama said in his State of the Union address January 20: “No challenge – no challenge – poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” (1)

In a previous article, “Move over, Neville Chamberlain” I had put forth the notion that what Obama said about Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons because that would be “against their religion,” could turn out to be — and I fervently hope I’m wrong — even more memorably stupid than Chamberlain’s “peace for our time.”  I’m afraid Obama’s climate remark could earn him second place as well.

(Less than two years ago Obama said income inequality was the “defining issue of our time.”(2) That’s also pretty stupid, but falls way down the list.)

Obama showed us his delusions are not confined to the Iranians when he further said in the State of the Union speech, “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate and if we do not act forcefully we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the globe.”

This theme was continued on page 12 of the National Security Strategy report released by the Obama White House last February 15: “Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water. The present day effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal regions,  infrastructure and property. In turn, the global economy suffers, compounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring infrastructure.” (3)

I’m reminded of Chicken Little.  In some versions of the fable, after running around screaming “The sky is falling,” Chicken Little leads frightened followers to seek protection in the wolf’s lair, with predictable results.  Obama would lead us into the government’s lair of carbon regulations, micromanagement of business and society, also with predictable results: impoverishment, international weakness and the entrenchment of the bureaucratic ruling class.

Fortunately, none of what the President said is true.  “All” of the “best scientists” are not telling us that increasing CO2 will lead to disastrous results.  Some are even saying it will be a good thing.(4 ) In fact, there appears to be a coordinated effort to bring some of those disagreeing scientists into the government lair with intimidations and threats. (5)

But do we really need scientists to form our opinions on global warming? How about some plain old common sense, backed up by what used to be valued in science, real-world evidence?  For starters, is climate change causing nastier weather which in turn is causing increased property damage?  Not according to Warren Buffett, one of the world’s richest men and an early Obama backer.

Buffett owns General Reinsurance, sort of an insurance company’s insurance company, which is subject to big claims when disasters strike.  He said climate change has not increased rates versus five years ago, “And I don’t think it’ll have an effect on what we’re charging three years or five years from now.” He added, “The public has the impression that because there’s been so much talk about climate that events of the last ten years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual. They haven’t.” (6)

Buffett’s experience was shared by Swiss Re, another large reinsurance company, that reported “markedly less damage claims than in previous years” in 2014, partly due to no major hurricane making landfall in the United States, the ninth straight year that has happened.  Moreover, the company’s major losses were from especially severe winter storms in the U.S. (7)

Speaking of severe winters, snow was supposed to be becoming rare in Great Britain.  Fifteen years ago a UK climate scientist predicted that snowfall was going to be a “rare and exciting event” for children, who “just aren’t going to know what snow is.”(8) The UK, like the U.S. has had two very rough winters in a row. Eleven years ago, the same scientist predicted the end of the Scottish skiing industry due to lack of snow.  Last year, the BBC reported that the Scottish mountains were the snowiest since perhaps 1945. (9)

Our own Al Gore, who won an Oscar for his 2006 documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, back in 2008 said there was a 75 percent chance the north pole would be completely ice-free “within the next five to seven years.” (10)  He made the same claim five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, predicting it could happen by 2014.(11) Recent observations show both North and South Poles to be far more stable than alarmists had predicted. (12)

Perhaps the most hysterical forecast was the UN prediction in 2005 that there would be 50 million “environmental” refugees by the end of 2010.(13)  I wonder what the number in 2015, today, was supposed to be? Given this sort of predictive miss, is it any wonder that polls show the public has climate change at the bottom of their concerns?

Perhaps no indicator shows public skepticism better than the market for oceanfront properties. One would think that such prime real estate would be dropping in value around the world if people were seeing evidence that the oceans were starting to noticeably rise. One would be wrong.

Google “Zillow Key West” and check the prices.  One I liked was for $1.4 million but was only a canal front home, last sold for $174,000 in 1985.(14 ) I think they made a lot of improvements.  Try “Zillow Key Largo” if you want to look for Bogie and Bacall. There was one for $5.6 million I liked. It was last sold in 1994 for $2.4 million.(15)

Of course, maybe these values would have gone up much more but for global warming. Which brings up a cynical observation: maybe global warming is a scare to keep prices down so rich global warmers can pick up some cheap real estate.  Leonardo DiCaprio, for example, another warmist, is building a resort on an island off the coast of Belize that looks like a speedboat wave could sink it. (16)
Maybe Leonardo has read some studies casting doubt on the idea that sea levels are rising. (17) (18) Regardless, he epitomizes the fact that the real world is not cooperating with Chicken Little.
In science, when observations do not match the predictions put forth by a hypothesis or theory, the theory is recognized to be wrong.  Yes, climate change is occurring, BUT THE RESULTS ARE NOT CATASTROPHIC.  The real “deniers” are those who deny real world facts and continue to make hysterical forecasts.
It is apparent that the subject of manmade global warming is no longer a scientific issue. It has become almost like a religion, where beliefs are acts of faith.  Fortunately, most people are not buying into the “religion,” so there is still hope that real science will someday prevail.
In the meantime, let’s answer the question of this article, “Global warming, where is thy sting?”  You don’t feel it in catastrophic weather events, population upheavals, or global agricultural disruptions, but take a look at your electricity bill, fellow New Mexicans.  See those charges for “Renewable Energy Rider?”  Mine totaled $3.73 last month.  Notice that renewable energy is INCREASING your bill, not reducing it.
All for what? To satisfy the quasi-religion of Global Warming.

(1) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/president-calls-climate-change-greatest-threat-future-generations-state-union/
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/obama-income-inequality-minimum-wage-live
(3) https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf
(4) http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
(5) http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-free-speech-1426548714
(6) Buffet ins http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458
(7) http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/18/worlds-second-largest-reinsurer-swiss-re-sees-huge-drop-in-losses-from-
naturalmanmade-catastrophes-in-2014/#sthash.97fJ6u1G.dpbs
(8) http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/
(9) ibid
(10) http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/years-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-ice-free-5-years/
(11) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/gore-new-study-sees-nearly-ice-free-arctic-summer-ice-cap-as-early-as-2014/1#.VTG2ZZPBU4o
(12) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/05/polar-ice-caps-more-stable-than-predicted-new-observations-show/
(13) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/12/flashback-2005-un-predicts-50-million-global-warming-refugees-2010
(14) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/pmf,pf_pt/45803346_zpid/days_sort/26.426309,-77.709045,23.895883,-83.070374_rect/7_zm/?view=map
(15) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Key-Largo-FL/pmf,pf_pt/45832389_zpid/52766_rid/days_sort/25.48791,-79.793015,24.855288,-81.133347_rect/9_zm/?view=map
(16)https://www.google.com/search?q=leonardo+dicaprio+belize&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qngwVcGVJdC1ogTi54CABQ&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=609
(17)www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/04/the-latest-paper-from-swedish-sea-level-expert-dr-nils-axel-morner-for-the-last-40-50-years-strong-observational-facts-indicate-virtually-stable-sea-level-conditions/
(18) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/20/new-study-finds-sea-levels-rising-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/

How Democracy Will Destroy America by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 3/30/15

The Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of democracy.  They thought democracy inevitably led to mob rule and dictatorship.  They constructed our Constitution with safeguards to prevent this, first by establishing a representative democracy, or republic.

Recognizing that even a republic is vulnerable to emotional tides that can sweep away the rights of citizens, they built in other constitutional safeguards, the primary one being a system of dual governments, state and federal, with each jealously guarding its Constitutional sphere of authority from the other.

To further dilute the power of the madding crowd, each state, regardless of territorial size or population, was given equal representation in the Senate, through which all legislation must pass.  Hence, scrawny New Mexico has as many senators as brawny California. To a lesser extent, this is also true of the Electoral College, where each state’s vote is the total of its number in the House of Representatives plus its two senators.

What is usually forgotten is that only men could vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920.  Some point to that moment as the beginning of the end of the noble American experiment: A country “of the people, by the people and for the people.“ True, the federal government began its huge expansion about then, but the driving force was the New Deal program to fight the Depression, not legislation to appease women voters.

Far more destructive to our republic was the Seventeenth Amendment, passed in 1913, that mandated members of the Senate be elected by popular vote. Prior to that, Senators had been appointed by each state’s legislators, sort of republicanism squared.  Now, both the House AND the Senate are filled with career politicians whose number one priority is getting reelected.

The most recent move to a greater democracy was the Twenty Sixth Amendment, passed in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.  As I recall, there was an undercurrent of guilt over the Vietnam War casualties which had many spouting the non sequitur, “If you’re old enough to fight, you’re old enough to vote.”

All of the above is trivial compared to the burgeoning efforts now underway to really kill off our republic.  For example, San Francisco’s board of supervisors is mulling allowing 16-year-olds to vote.  After all, if you’re old enough to drive, old enough to pay taxes on your part time job, you’re old enough to vote. Eventually, we’ll hear the argument that voting will give these young adults a sense of responsibility. It will be good for them. Yes, lowering the voting age will help our children.  That’s a tried and true political winner.

Add to that, a March 24 article in The New York Time’s Magazine by NPR “Planet Money” founder Adam Davidson, suggesting we could have as many as 11 million new immigrants every year.  Open borders, he writes, “would benefit nearly all of us.” (1)  That assertion is highly debatable, but what isn’t is that such an influx would greatly expand the number of potential Democrats. Maybe that explains President Obama’s recent trial balloon: Mandatory voting.

All this has me fantasizing about what the typical progressive might consider an ideal world.

First, we up the immigration quotas from south of the border to 30 million a year with instant citizenship because we are all “citizens of the world,” and, hey, this is a democracy, right? Everybody should get to vote.

Second, we lower the voting age to 14: “If you’re old enough to be a parent, you’re old enough to vote.”

Third, people who can’t speak English get to vote twice. As minorities in an English speaking world, they are facing daunting obstacles that somehow should be compensated for.

Fourth, people on welfare should also get to vote twice, as their fate is so involved with government programs.

Fifth: Mandatory voting.

It wouldn’t take too many election cycles before this expanded democracy would call a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution, one with all sorts of rights, e.g. the “right” to a good job, the “right” to water and food, the “right” to a college education, the “right” to retire at 50, and all sorts of other things that would be approved by a huge majority of voters. Some rights would disappear, such as the right to bear arms.  I bet term limits for presidents would go too, as well as the “archaic“ Electoral College.

This would end our democratic republic, with all its restrictive limits on what some people think is good government.  To quote progressive icon Thomas Friedman: “—what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment.” (2)

Gee, Tom, how much better to be China forever so we could always “authorize the right solutions.”  Think about what “authorize” means, folks.

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a lady asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” His famous reply:  “A republic, if you can keep it.”

It looks like we can’t.

(1) (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?ref=magazine&_r=0)
(2) http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to

The Administrative State: Who Needs Congress? Part Two  by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 3/28/15

In part one, posted here on March 19, I ended with an email to this district’s Congressman, Republican Steve Pearce.  Below is that email and his response.

Two things are apparent:

1) Nobody read my email, or if they did, it was without understanding it.  (I bet emails are scanned for key words and a form letter reply is then sent. Probably the key word in my email was “EPA.”)

2)  Pearce’s reply illustrates one of the points made in part one, namely that Congress spends a lot of time passing laws to undo the laws passed by the unelected bureaucrats.  In this case, H.R. 5078, which passed with enough House votes to override a Presidential veto.

However, H.R. 5078 HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE.  This means that the issue of  EPA overreach is still of great concern to those who would be most effected. This was very apparent at the Grant County/New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau meeting held last Thursday night at the American Legion hall in Silver City.

Perhaps the title of this article should read, “Who needs YOU, Congressman Pearce?”

(Full disclosure: I voted for Steve Pearce in the past and intend to do so in the future. The Democratic Party will never have a candidate with views closer to my own than Steve Pearce’s views.  You can bet the house on that.)

3/19/15 email:

Congressman Pearce,

Recent rulings by the FCC and EPA have made it quite clear that Congress is becoming irrelevant in an age of the administrative state.

To restore Congressional oversight, I suggest you propose a law that says that NO proposed bureaucratic laws/regulations go into effect unless they are approved, at the very least, by an oversight committee of elected representatives, preferably by a two-thirds majority.

I realize this would greatly increase the Congressional work load, a lament that will receive little sympathy from the public. To lessen the work load, I suggest congress eliminate some of the bureaucracies in Washington, starting with those that have NO constitutional authority, e.g. HUD.

This email has been published in The Grant County Beat on 3/19/15 as part of an article I wrote, which can be found in “Columns – Libertarian Leanings.” I plan to do likewise with your response.

Sincerely, Peter Burrows, Silver City

3/27/15 Reply:

Dear Mr. Burrows,

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and water regulation in the U.S. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

On September 9, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 by a bipartisan vote of 262-152. The bill prevents the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from expanding their regulatory jurisdiction over ponds, streams, and ditches currently regulated by the states.

The EPA and Army Corp of Engineers’ proposed rule for Waters of the United States would have a devastating impact on communities throughout southern New Mexico. Farmers, ranchers, and small businesses are already over-regulated by the federal government, they do not need more. The proposed rule is another example of the Obama Administration’s continued attempt to unilaterally implement unnecessary federal regulations. H.R. 5078 blocks this blatant federal overreach by prohibiting the implementation of the rule, allowing the state of New Mexico and its local officials to continue to effectively regulate their own waters.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

Sincerely,
Steve Pearce
Member of Congress

People: Yes.  Wolves: No  Part two. By Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 3/10/15

(On Tuesday night, March 10, 6:00 PM at the Woman’s Club, the TEA Party is hosting Laura Schneberger, President of the Gila Livestock Growers Assn., who will speak on the problems facing ranchers because of the wolf recovery program.  Public welcome, no charge.)

When I first arrived in Silver City almost ten years ago, I attended a public meeting on the wolf recovery program. I remember it was at the Unitarian Church, and I believe it was put on by Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.  I remember the presenter was a young man of sincerity and passion.

I was there to learn about and lend my support to the wolf effort because I thought it sounded like a good thing.  Being from Wisconsin, I had a lot to learn about the Southwest.

To the best of my dimming recollection — this was ten years ago folks — the program was concerned with the difficulty of introducing the wolf to this area. The high mortality rate of the wolves was dramatized with pictures of wolves caught in traps, wolves that had escaped traps by gnawing a leg off, wolves that had been shot, wolf pups with no mother, etc. etc.

Like most of us, I associate wolves with dogs and what I saw was upsetting. Even more upsetting was the attempt to blame all this wolf carnage on the ranchers.  I voiced my opinion that the blame was on the people, including those in that room, who were trying to shoehorn the wolf back into an area where it was neither welcome nor needed.  I felt like shouting “Stop this inhumane experiment, damn you!”

Things have gotten worse since then. This past January the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expanded the Mexican Gray wolf recovery habitat four-fold to encompass the southern two-thirds of Arizona and New Mexico, and jumped the target wolf population to 300-325.  The aforementioned Michael Robinson immediately protested that the area wasn’t enough and the target number of wolves too low.

Rule One for Government Programs: THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH.

OK, how would I run a wolf recovery program in the unlikely event that I thought that would make the world a better place?  The first thing I would do is buy out all the ranchers and farmers who object to the program.. These are the folks who were here first, some going back generations, who earn a living here that will be hurt by the wolf program.  They’re also the folks who could sabotage the program if they’re not on board.

I would pay top dollar and then some. The livestock would be sold off and the lands restored to as close to original as possible.  If some wanted to keep their homes but not ranch in any way, fine. Everybody would be happy.  I know what you’re thinking: “Where you gonna get the bucks, Burro?”

Easy.  I’d tap the vast left-wing billionaire environmental club, starting with Tom Steyer, Oprah, The Google Boys, etc. etc.  Should be able to raise $50 to $100 million a year until the job is done.  It might take 20-30 years. There will be rancher holdouts who love their lifestyle, holdouts wanting more than “top dollar plus,” and some who just want to be obstinate.  It will take some time.

Why isn’t that being done now? Because that would mean that those in charge of the wolf recovery program recognize that the people who were already here have rights, feelings and traditions that should be respected instead of violated. If you believe that’s possible, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

They’d rather use government money and coercion, the ranchers be damned and to Hell with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.  (Laws are such petty annoyances.)  They don’t give a damn about the wolves, either.  That’s obvious.  As to cattle, sheep, horses, pets and all the wildlife the wolves will kill, that’s just the price to pay (by others) to achieve “nature’s balance.”

It’s not really about putting the wolf back in the wilderness, it’s about getting the people out of what used to be the wilderness, but is no more.  According to a couple of grizzled ranchers in Catron County, Charlie McCarty and Hugh McKeen, who wrote books about trying to ranch in New Mexico, the Federal Forestocracy is actively on the side of the environmentalists.

What’s really ironic is the fact that human beings, far from being the agents of wolf extinction, have in fact guaranteed that Canis lupus will be on earth for as long as people are.  With a breeding tweak here and there, over time the wolf has evolved into a rich array of wonderful creatures we call “dogs.”

Wolves. Wonderful animals after ten thousand years or so of human engineering.  Otherwise, leave them in the wilderness.

People: Yes.  Wolves: No    by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 3/9/15

(On Tuesday night, 6:00 PM at the Woman’s Club, the TEA Party is hosting Laura Schneberger, President of the Gila Livestock Growers Assn., who will speak on the problems facing ranchers because of the wolf reintroduction program. Public welcome, no charge.)

Good people love animals in general, and dogs in particular.  We transfer that special love so many of us have for dogs to wolves.  This is a mistake: WOLVES ARE NOT DOGS.  Wolves will eat your dog, and your cat, and your horse, and maybe even your grandchild, though I’ve yet to hear of that.

I have a great picture in my den of a wolf, face half hidden, looking through out-of-focus branches in a telephoto picture taken by the great wolf photographer, Jim Brandenberg.  I love the photo, and the wolf, but I wouldn’t love the wolf if he was in my yard.  If he threatened my dog, my cat, my family or my neighbor‘s cat, dog, or family, I’d shoot him.  Without hesitation, without a qualm. (To see the photograph, Google “wolf photography Brandenberg,” and look for “Gray Wolf.”)

Which brings to mind a problem with reintroducing wolves into our environment. If your dog comes into my yard and kills my dog, I’m going to make sure you are visited by the police.  Who am I going to seek redress from if a wolf kills my dog?  Multiply the intensity by a million for a child instead of a dog.

The above is not so hypothetical.  Just this past January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its ongoing wolf recovery program, expanded the Mexican Gray Wolf habitat area four-fold, to cover the southern two-thirds of both Arizona and New Mexico. The informal population target for wolves had been 100. It is now 300 – 325.  This guarantees more frequent contact between wolves and people.  It also guarantees more headaches, heartaches, and financial woes for the ranchers of Arizona and New Mexico.

All this is of little concern to the people pushing the wolf recovery program.  They aren’t facing any financial hardships if a wolf kills a steer; they’ll never have to shoot a dog, horse or calf left to die after being mangled by a wolf.  And, if a human being is killed by a wolf, well, that‘s just too rare to be of any concern.  (Maybe becoming not so rare. A teacher in Alaska was recently killed by wolves while jogging.)

This problem of advocates not bearing the costs of their advocacy is seen throughout our society. The higher costs of renewable energy are of little concern to the elitist environmentalist. Those who advocate higher minimum wages rarely have any employees. Similarly, the popularity of wolf recovery programs is big in metropolitan areas with people who will never see a ranch, never mind own or work on one.

What especially distresses me are those wildlife lovers who claim reintroducing the wolf will bring “balance to nature.”  What these people fail to appreciate is that the wolf has been gone from this area for almost a hundred years.  People have moved in, and people have established a new balance of nature.  This new balance has introduced cattle, sheep and horses to the environment, and has also resulted in larger elk and deer populations, to the benefit of both hunters and wildlife programs supported by hunters and hunting license fees.

To a degree, people have replaced wolves in the “balance of nature.”  Reintroducing wolves will upset this balance and, at the very least, will result in a drastically reduced population of elk and deer. In Yellowstone Park, wolves began being introduced in 1995 and the once vast herds of elk have been reduced by up to 80 percent, with an attendant near destruction of a once thriving hunting industry.

Now, I am not a hunter.  I do not wish to kill elk, antelope, cougar, etc. for sport, trophy or meat. However, I do not feel morally superior to those who do hunt, and I have enjoyed my brother-in-law’s antelope stew on more than one occasion.  I rationalize this with the fact that hunters are needed to control the antelope and deer  populations.

Better hunters with rifles than packs of wolves.  I’d rather have wild game die more or less instantly than over a long period from a ripped-open intestine.  Wolves are vicious killers.  How a professed wildlife lover would want to turn packs of wolves loose where they will destroy deer and antelope herds is beyond me.  In addition, there are the domestic cattle, horses, sheep and pets that will also inevitably suffer terrible deaths due to wolves.

All this thanks to people who think it is their right to impose their version of cosmic justice on the rest of us. My question to them: Who made you God?