13 Apr

Bears and Islamic Radicals are Dangerous [Reader Post]

                                       

grizzly

There are many ways to deal with an adversary in the world of international politics. No matter how you deal with enemies who want to destroy you, it is important to maintain aloofness and not play out your hand too early, for in the arena of politics and war it is a mistake to be regarded as foolish or naïve by your opposition.

President Obama has set his own standards for dealing with ruthless enemies, from rules of engagement to reassuring our enemies that he wishes them no ill feelings. The inexperience and naiveté astounds both our enemies and probably soon to be former allies.

President Obama has once again lived up to his reputation as the quintessential Narcissist, who is so enamored of his own voice that he can’t resist telling our sworn enemies our strategic retaliation plans and of our plans to reduce our nuclear arsenal. In the NYT our president stated that by relaxing our nuclear potential and executing a policy of increasing the isolation of Iran and North Korea will make them see the folly of operating outside of accepted international norms.

Both India and Pakistan have joined the league of nuclear nations under similar conditions; and now Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong-il continue to laugh at the restrictions and mock the United States. Now rogue nations and our sworn enemy Radical Islam of ambiguous nationality have come to realize a Community Organizer who is both naïve and idealistic with Muslim sympathies is as good an opportunity as they will ever have to improve their position.

In a surreal move, our President has ordered that any references to Radical Islam be deleted in government and military papers to avoid Muslim nation assuming that we regard them through the prism of terrorism. This move has been well received by our enemies, especially Radical Islam and their media proxy CAIR. Of course these terms are used daily within the Muslim media.

Many Americans feel that a president’s first priority is to the people of the United States and not the sensitivities of enemies who boast every day about their desire to kill us and enslave our women and children. President Obama told Nicholas Kristof, a NYT reporter, in 2007, that the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset”, and then recites the prayer in Arabic, can logically cause Americans to doubt his intentions. Denying the existence of an enemy or obfuscating his mission with vague ambiguities can in effect leaves our citizens and military vulnerable.

physio_peace_river

The incongruity of our political situation and the vulnerability that results fro denying the presence of danger reminds me of an incident of denial and coincidence in the Peace River Country nearly 35 years ago. A customer of mine who lived along the Alaska Highway was hunting moose with a bow. I hunted with a bow when I was too young for my parents to trust me with a firearm and I was proficient enough to kill moose and elk with the bow; but it often meant hours of tracking that sometimes continued on to the next day. Once I was old enough to pack around an old military 8mm Mauser, I never picked up my bow again. To this day, I have only owned one rifle; although the only original part is the receiver and it has been altered to fire an ‘06 brass; it still has the eagle and Swastika stamps on the bolt and receiver, they made excellent rifles and me owning this one is a mark of freedom’s triumph over National Socialism.

I don’t begrudge the archer his sport: I admire his dedication and sportsman’s attitude. Although, when guiding Grizzly hunters who wanted to use a bow, I assured them that I was backing them up with my rifle; there was no debate open to that situation.

None the less, my customer, (a horse customer, not a hunting customer), was trying to call in a moose to a lick a few miles behind his home. He was hidden in some brush on the ground and there is nothing unusual about his method, except while using the call of a sexually frustrated cow pleading for the amorous attentions of a macho type bull, a two year old Grizzly walked up silently behind him.

77847190-0ivujngzNow as far as Grizzlies go, the most dangerous bears are the sows with cubs, the two year olds, and the geriatric Grizzlies. No one needs an explanation of why sows with cubs are especially dangerous, except to say that boar Grizzlies are known for eating cubs in a primitive method of population control and eliminating future competition for food and breeding rights; this is probably one of the reasons why sow Grizzlies can be more ferocious when they have cubs than other animals with young. The old ones, like me, can’t run as fast as they once could, their claws and teeth are worn out and broken and they are not the formidable beast they once were; consequently, humans eventually come to be more attractive as a food source; we can’t run with any speed, our swimming skills are laughable and we are weaker than a three month old cub, in other words we are easy pickings if they can overlook the odor of soap and the stench of civilization. The two year old youngster that has been just kicked away from the sow so that she can, hopefully, have another cub or two or three is another dangerous animal. If the cub didn’t learn his lessons well, he often faces starvation during that two year old year. Thus the human becomes more attractive as a food source: the elk and moose are wary, smart, and can run like hell. Humans in the mountains, tend to run like a blind fat man, how easy can it get?

This two year old was starving and was attracted to the strange moose calls from near the spring and thought he might just make the kill that would keep him alive. He snuck within a few feet of the sounds and there was a stinking human; throwing natural caution aside, he reached out with one paw and slapped the human in the head. Fortunately, the head remained attached (I once investigated the kill site of a Charlois Bull, with my friend Knarley Manners, the community wolf hunter, a Grizzly had caught the bull unaware and with one swat took the bull’s head off, the head landed 20 feet away, we’re talking about a 2200 pound bull); but the scalp flew down over my friend’s face and flipped him over on to his back. The starving two year old once again seized the initiative and jumped on my friend’s body and began ripping away the flesh of his chest in a ravenous effort to relieve his hunger.

Normally, a bear will bury a fresh kill under six feet of dirt and leaves to let it get ‘high’ before enjoying their meal. Apparently this is because they don’t have a cook stove and their teeth aren’t capable of the marvelous mastication abilities of human teeth.

Realizing he was now in a desperate situation, my friend reached for his knife.

grizzlybearsfightingaUsually, cowboys, trappers, hunting guides, and men who make their living in the bush will carry a folding knife because of safety issues. The drama and look of the straight knife is forsaken for the inherent safety features of a folder. For some reason, my friend had a straight knife that day, and although he was temporarily blinded by the blood and his own scalp draped over his face- he made a valiant last ditch effort to stab at least once with his straight knife. The knife plunged into the bear and severed the carotid artery; the bear ran fifty meters and fell down dead. My friend placed his scalp back in a fairly correct position, walked out to the Alaska Highway and thumbed a ride to the hospital.

At almost the same time, another friend of mine, a trapper who was a little unscrupulous and had a dubious reputation, and tended to get in trouble with the law now and then for making moonshine and such was doing something illegal once again. He was trying to smoke a Grizzly out of a freshly dug den in a side hill. He had a brush fire at the bottom end producing a lot of smoke, while he was waiting at the top end with his rifle.

This is probably the oldest method of killing bears, our great ancestors surely did the same technique, except they and our native people, yes we are all related by experience and blood, were waiting with spears and bows rather than high powered rifles. The kill was probably never guaranteed and there was a good chance that someone or several could die in the melee.

My friend felt fairly safe with his rifle, while he waited for the bear to stick his head out the upper entrance. He became impatient and thought the smoke wasn’t heavy enough or hot enough so he piled on more brush and sticks to up the ante. He then resumed his position waiting for the bear, for it was only seconds before the bear made his appearance. He hit my friend at a dead run from behind. Surprise! The bear wasn’t sleeping in his den; he had been out for a walk. My friend was now on his back and the bear was extremely agitated. The bear lunged at my friend’s neck and face and he threw his left forearm over his face to protect himself; fortunately, he was wearing a thick parka and that tended to protect him while the bear was biting huge holes in his arm. While his left arm was being mauled, he tried to get his folding knife out of its sheath on his belt under his parka with his right hand. Every time he would grasp the knife and start to get it out of the sheath, the bear changed tactics and went for his abdomen, he would then protect his abdomen with his right arm and the bear would bite through the parka and into his right arm, after several switches, without getting his knife out, he decided to roll over and play dead, since he seemed to be losing the battle all to quickly with his present strategy.

After my friend rolled over the bear put my friend’s head in its mouth and shook him like a dog shaking a squirrel. At that point he passed out and when he woke up he was buried under snow, dirt, and leaves. He didn’t really want to crawl out from under his slow cooker; but if he was going to survive, he had to get out of there.

When he crawled out from under the debris the bear was gone. My friend stumbled to his snowmobile and drove 26 miles to the highway and caught a ride into town to see if anyone was at the hospital.

The hospital staff, being a fun loving bunch, put them both in the same room; I suppose it was in the forlorn hope that they could fine tune their bear wrestling skills by comparing notes.

Soon the moccasin telegraph notified me of these two lonely souls holed up at the local hospital; I figured it to be a twofer hospital visit, two visits for the price of one visit. A Conservative should always seek value for your effort or money.

They were in extremely good spirits, the hospital staff kept them in stitches with bear jokes, of course that wasn’t too hard, they each had over 500 stitches. They told me they were starting a bear club; but they were finding it hard to build the membership because of the initiation ceremony. They asked me if I wanted to join and I told them I would need to think on it for a while, I’m still thinking.

On one hand we have a hunter who was going by the book, much like a politician might while leading a country. He is attacked and by a stroke of luck and the sheer will to survive, he survives. Could he have been more prudent, yes indeed, when in Grizzly country, you are never supposed to leave you’re back exposed. The Grizzly often attacks from behind, waiting in a tree is the safest but this story serves to illustrate how being preoccupied with something leaves you vulnerable to another attack.

In the other attack, the man was doing an illegal act, but his primary mistake was to have tunnel vision and forget about the possibility of the bear not being in the den. Again, against all odds he survived by luck and sheer will.

President Obama has tipped his hand and told our terrorist enemies and more importantly the countries that fund and arm them that we will never respond to attack with a nuclear response. It is a small concession, that accomplishes nothing except for the opportunity to do some political posturing on the world stage; however for a country who has the money to finance such an attack and apparently there is no small number of Islamic martyrs who are more than happy to get a direct pass to the promised land with all the cool babes. Such an admission will not decrease the chance of a maniac sponsoring such an attack; it only serves to embolden his resolve, for if there is nothing to fear, why should you hesitate.

President Obama’s latest policy of ignoring the Radical Islamist by direct obfuscation of facts and by refusing to acknowledge the nature and purpose of our enemy only serves for him to posture on the world’s political stage and for the welfare of our country to be gambled upon by the naïve and foolish presumptions of a Narcissist; who actually believes his voice and demeanor has the ability to charm the Radical Islamist as successfully as the women who could faint on cue during the campaign.

There is one glaring problem with these presumptions by the president, the Islamic Radical is not stupid and like the Grizzly, he will exploit every advantage you leave available to take the opportunity to kill you

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Fanatical Islam, Foreign Policy, India, Iran, Islam, Pakistan, Politics, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, April 13th, 2010 at 6:00 am
| 480 views

21 Responses to Bears and Islamic Radicals are Dangerous [Reader Post]

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Bears and Islamic Radicals are Dangerous [Reader Post] -- Topsy.com

  2. You have the most interesting stories! And the way you tied it to Obama was excellent.

    I’ll just repeat this part for emphasis: “a Community Organizer who is both naïve and idealistic with Muslim sympathies is as good an opportunity as they will ever have to improve their position.”

    It’s pretty obvious our enemies see Obama as a golden opportunity to do whatever it is they have been planning, but dared not do during the Bush years.

    With Castro and Chavez praising Obama and the Mad Mullahs in Iran openly laughing at him, they clearly have nothing to fear.

    When evil men feel unconstrained by any deterrent they are more likely to threaten the peace of the world. It’s funny how the “peace activists” always get this one wrong, but then they have been blaming the peacemakers for years.

    ReplyReply
  3. Skookum says: 2

    Thanks Mike, your kind words instill confidence and the determination to do even better in the future: unfortunately, Obama’s words are instilling confidence among our enemies and a sense of desperation among our allies. Sadly our allies are faced with the cold reality of not having the big kid on the playground helping them when they are faced with evil in the future. The safety and peaceful balance of power in the world is being altered in a surreal manner by a man who seems preoccupied with his own image rather than the welfare of the people of the US and the free nations of the world.

    I will reply to screams of sanctimonious indignation and rage later tonight, after work.

    ReplyReply
  4. Theodore Herrera says: 3

    Folks this is what happens when you lose elections.Our security crashes,our allies get crushed,and the ‘ONE’appoints Liberals to the bench for life.We already knew Obama and the Dems were going to’manage’our decline.We failed as conservatives to keep GW on the straight and narrow then we nominated a broken down RINO.Our country is getting what it wanted in spades.Sadly I am not sure electing Republicans to a majority will help.As I have said before Obama can count on very weak Republicans to assist him…….Mike between the Bear and Radical Islam the American People were given a choice between weak and RINO weak.That is not much of a choice at all! :(

    ReplyReply
  5. Skookum says: 4

    Theodore, despite McCain’s friendliness with Liberals and his voting record, I doubt if there are man people wn the world who would think that he would sell out America’s interests and compromise America’s security and the security of our allies like the witless wonder that resides in the White House.

    In a manner of speaking, this is the result of us the grass roots not being involved; we might have influenced Bush to be less Liberal with spending, if we had made our opinions known. Regardless, the nomination would have reflected our views if we would have had our conservative principles pushing the issues.

    Now our backs are to the wall, along with freedom itself!

    ReplyReply
  6. Theodore Herrera says: 5

    Skookum I agree our backs are against the wall.The grassroots are not involved because the Party that represents us won’t fight……but enough of that.To turn this thing around conservatives must look high and low for a Reagan.Obama is trying to beat Carter as our worst President.I like Palin,but I am open to anyone who will be strong!

    ReplyReply
  7. Skookum says: 6

    Theodore, the midterm is important as a battle ground to view our next candidate. This time we will not be influenced by the State Controlled Media (SCM) formerly known as MSM, Obama’s propaganda bureau. In our lifetimes we better never consider being uninvolved, the enemy is at the gate, Hell he is at 1600 Pensylvania Ave.

    Never again will we be BSed by a Madison Avenue propaganda promotion.

    ReplyReply
  8. Smorgasbord says: 7

    Skookum,
    Bears are only dangerous if you get too close to them and they think you are a danger to them or their cubs. To compare them to the “Islamic Radicals” is a smear to the bears. “Islamic Radicals” come to us and attack without warning. At least the bears warn us first.

    You mentioned that Obama “…has ordered that an references to Radical Islam be deleted in government and military papers to avoid Muslim nation assuming that we regard them through the prism of terrorism.” You need to look at it from his point of view. He wants to be king, but he can’t be king in a republic. When you keep this in mind, EVERYTHING he does makes sense.

    ReplyReply
  9. RADICAL ISLAM exist ,and the people knows it even if it’s banned from public exchanges,they cannot erase that by not talking about it,,because we are in a war and it started from them attacking in this country killing thousands of peoples who where in peace,,they are responsible for our soldiers blood spilling,let anyone not forget .

    ReplyReply
  10. SKOOKUM ,do you at least laugh,while writing? this a bit of everything to start the day with,,sex,danger sports,humor to die for,stinking human,and politic,you assemble a stew,that we eat with no salt needed,no wonder you are a good cook ,,bye :roll: and also with the moral of the story.

    ReplyReply
  11. Skookum says: 10

    Smorg. no offence intended I nickname everyone, bears are only dangerous if you are in close proximity, true enough; however, many people must work, live, and travel in the same country as a bear; although, few people ever have this rare privilege, some of us lived it as a lifestyle and it is my retirement dream to return. Consequently, human / bear interaction is limited.

    The two stories within the story illustrate that the bear doesn’t necessarily warn you of an attack; however, once you receive a warning from a Grizzly, your odds are slim and none. You can’t out swim them, you can’t out run them, if the bear is over two you can out climb them (talking Grizzly here, the Black Bear is another animal with different traits) and if you climb up a tree they will shake you out of the tree or pull the tree out by the roots since most trees in Grizzly country, other than coastal areas, are shallow rooted with less than a 30 inch butt.

    I love Grizzly bears and have spent many hours watching them, usually from a distance; however, I never travel in bear country without my rifle. Of course the bear is the same bear that has walked the earth for millions of years: the Islamic maniac has been around for a relatively short amount of time, they are psychopathic creatures who are despicable and offer nothing to the world but their own psychosis. It is a crime against nature to compare Islamic Radicals and Grizzlies, I meant only to illustrate the danger of being naive and unaware, with an antagonist as simple as a bear.

    I am surprised that no one mentioned the Grizzly cub: they are so cute, but danger lurks near by. Please don’t believe the animal behavior propaganda churned out by animal rights groups, Disney and many dubious authors; I portray the animals in my stories accurately without a hidden agenda. I suspect that many of those in the press and on the tv have minimal time with nature; because, their portrayals don’t mesh with true animal behavior.

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 11

    Yes Bees, I often laugh while I write and hope that readers will appreciate the dry subtle humor. There is more risk of writing being taken out of context when you use humor: a reader’s sense of humor may not be programmed for my specific brand of humor; but, I can’t resist.

    Your expression “humor to die for”, is a curious expression; it is from a type of humor that is called humor of the macabre; I try to stay on the lighter side of humor; perhaps a little rough around the edges, like myself, yet light none the less.

    The stew metaphor is great material and could be developed into an article. Your English language skills and wit are steadily improving.

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 12

    @Skookum: No offense intended, but a lot of us don’t like our name shortened. It reminds me of a customer I had as a salesman. He told me his name was William. I mentioned to him that I was guessing he goes by Will. He strongly, but politely said, “William.” I am lousy at remembering names and usually forget a customer’s name in 2-3 minutes if I don’t use it. About 30 years later I still remember his name.

    I am a hunter, but haven’t done it for many years because I chose to drive a truck over the road until I retired. I am not a nature freak, although I keep asking the question, “When man and nature conflict, why does nature always have to lose?”

    ReplyReply
  14. SMORGASBORD i think you are very wise,i like your last quote,it fits perfectly in every situation thank you for that,bye :roll:

    ReplyReply
  15. SKOOKUM,i should have said to you,,humor to die lauphing for,,because i was lauphing so much,,so funny somes parts was ,bye :roll:

    ReplyReply
  16. Skookum says: 15

    @Smorgasbord: There are several levels of conflict with nature. I often hear of guys who have killed a Grizzly say it was him or me. Knowing the personality of the man, I was often left with my doubts. In other words a man takes an advantage and kills a Grizzly without a tag, out of season, or with some other dubious situation. He must plead his case to the fish and game, to keep the hide. This can be ugly and I am glad not to responsible for passing judgement on whether someone is lying. I took a chance with a young Grizzly to let him live and could have lost my life; but I am still here, I hope the bear lived his full 35 years. I love nature, possibly more than mankind; however, I see nature on a scale of reality rather than through the Leftist binoculars of manipulation through propaganda. That is one small area of conflict and the bear will win that one several times a year, I don’t begrudge them a win now and then, as long as it isn’t me. The Fish and Game isn’t of the opinion that a bear must be destroyed unless it just wont quit raiding ranches, often the bear is relocated;unfortunately, some of them seem to have GPS for getting back home.

    For me the biggest conflict is with agriculture and eventually urban sprawl. Farmers and ranchers hate to lose livestock to the predators; I know what it is like to raise up a litter of pigs to 220 pounds and have a Black Bear come in and steal one like a fox in a hen house. (Black Bears like coyotes see the farm/ranch as a source of easy protein.)

    There has been a tremendous amount of land sacrificed for agriculture; agriculture that wasn’t suitable because of poor soil and other reasons; but still, nature was sacrificed to help bankroll a farmers bad dream. Eastern Pennsylvania comes to mind, there are many old homesteads that are now grown over with hardwoods that someone with good intentions condemned himself to a life of toil and poverty on land that wasn’t suitable for agriculture. Nature eventually reclaims the land, after 200 years, unless urban sprawl claims the land.

    This is part of the dilemma for us people who love freedom. Should marginal land be used for agriculture? Should regulatory agencies tell the farmer how to utilize his land? Should the farmer be forced to keep fence rows in natural brush for nature or should they take them out to get that last few bushels? Should Fish and Game tell a farmer that the beaver have a right to flood out his meadows that he uses to graze his cattle?

    I don’t have the answers and I have been on both sides of some of the questions.

    ReplyReply
  17. Skookum says: 16

    Bees, that is so funny. This is more of the entente situations I mentioned last week. You are a perfect example of how English can be used in new and fresh ways.

    How boring, when everyone speaks and writes in the same manner, there are never mistakes or misunderstandings; but it becomes so boring, no one cares to read.

    Bees, personal info: I am going to ask you to try using the : and ;, they are easy and fun. The : and the ; are used to link two sentences together. There must be two sentences; there are special exceptions; but they can be learned later. The ; almost always has a connector word like but or however, or furthermore.

    When you use the : it is almost the same, except the second sentence explains the first sentence or is in apposition of the first sentence and it often lacks the connective word at the beginning of the second sentence.

    example: It was a beautiful sailboat; however, it was poorly designed and sank on its maiden voyage.

    example: It was a beautiful sailboat on its maiden voyage: the rotten materials and inferior design would mean disaster within a few hours.

    The examples are fairly close; but I need to go to work.

    It will be like going out on the town with a new outfit: Bees, you are ready to move it up a few notches. Skook.

    ReplyReply
  18. SKOOKUM; i appreciate that valuable lesson,i, will try to absorb it into my comments: i thank you: i hope you have a good day. bye :roll:

    ReplyReply
  19. Smorgasbord says: 18

    @Skookum: You and I could be twins separated a birth. We think the same way. Even if we take wildlife out of the equation, how long will it be when we haven’t got enough agricultural land left to raise enough food for the people? I can’t help but think that we should have agricultural land set aside like we did our national parks so that it could only be bought and sold as agricultural land.

    Anther problem with wildlife is that some of them have certain trails that they use to get their food, drink, and sleep. When we build in that pathway we are asking for trouble. I wish we could track ALL the animals and designate certain areas that can’t be developed, but we can’t. I don’t have the answers either, just questions and suggestions.

    ReplyReply
  20. Bob Delp says: 19

    @Mike’s America: Absolutely a great read! I am anxious
    to send this around to my radical muslum Obama hating friends!

    ReplyReply
  21. Theodore Herrera
    hi,
    long time in 2010 to now 2012, after the election
    he won and it’s busyness as usual,
    you where right then , and you are still right now
    best to you

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>