July 12, 2020

Deceived and/or Delusional

Deceived“(of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.” “(of a thing) give a mistaken impression.” “fail to admit to oneself that something is true.”

2 Thessalonians 2:3,4 – “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 – Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Delusional“an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.”

2 Thessalonians 2: 6-12 – And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

If you think that Trump is the answer to this country’s problems, you are deceived. He is under strong delusion.

If you think Biden is the answer to this country’s problems, you are deceived. Biden is under strong delusion.

If you think Barack Obama is the answer to this country’s problems, you are deceived. He is under strong delustion.

If you think COVID-19 is a real and legitimate “virus” and that governmental authorities are doing what is “necessary” to keep us “safe,” you are deceived. Those leaders are under strong delusion.

If you think these protests supposedly about racism are real and that real people started them, you are deceived. Those instigators are under strong delusion.

If you think there is going to be a “second” or “third” round of COVID-19, you are deceived. Those controlling such things are under strong delusion.

If you think the Pope has your answers, you are deceived. The Pope is under strong delusion.

If you think “Q” is instigating a “Great Awakening” and that “Q” is the work of God, you are deceived. Q is the work of someone suffering from strong delusion.

If you think things are going to get back to “normal,” you are deceived. Those in control of bringing us back to “normal” are under strong delusion.

If you think this upcoming election will resolve many political differences, you are deceived. All politicians are under strong delusion.

If you think the police are our heroes, you are deceived. The leaders of law enforcement are under strong delusion.

If you think our military are our heroes and can save us, you are deceived. The leaders of the military are under strong delusion.

If you think knocking down statues will help the cause of racism, you are deceived. Those who erected the statues are under strong delusion. Those telling you to tear them down are under strong delusion.

If you think your church/religion has all the answers, you are deceived. Many religious leaders of the world are under strong delusion.

If you think trashing American or World History is going to make things better, you are deceived. Those who promote their “history” are under strong delusion.

If you think Hollywood has the answers to the world’s problems, along with the music industry of all kinds, you are deceived. The leaders of these institutions are under strong delusion.

If you think wearing a face mask will stop a virus, you are deceived. Those telling you you must wear one are under strong delusion.

If you think creating a “police-free zone” in your city is going to make things better, you are deceived. Those prompting such a move are under strong delusion.

If you think receiving a “chip” that will track your movements and grant you the ability to buy and sell, you are deceived and are probably under the influence of strong delusion.

If you are of the unrighteous of this world, i.e. “…neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,” you are deceived and/or under strong delusion, and you cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

Be not deceived. Get converted. Repent for you sins. Get both eyes looking up and calling upon the name of the Almighty El. It is the ONLY way to not be deceived, for the Scriptures say even the Elect will be deceived.

The end is at hand. Don’t miss the boat. Do something about it. Pray without ceasing.

Share

And…Shut Your Mouth and Maybe Live

My last post was about me remaining silent on issues. I still am but only to say that believers in the LORD God, who sent his Son to atone for our sins and provide us a path back home, should be vigilant…watching, praying, fasting, listening to the Holy Spirit. The time is at hand.

I also wanted to tell those same people that in most cases it is time to learn to shut up. It might save your life or prevent terrible things from happening. The world has gone insane and is being controlled by Satan and his army of locusts/scorpions.

Obey the Holy Spirit but within yourself, keep your mouth shut. Only the power of God the Almighty EL can deal with these the serpent race. Your flesh is weak.

It was a few years ago now, I recall reading about how things will be in the End of Days, i.e. the Great Tribulation. I cannot find where I read it but I certainly have remembered what I read, even though at the time I didn’t understand it.

What I read was that in the Latter Days, born again people (the real ones, the Elect) will close their mouths to those around them and all their focus will be on the Lord God Almighty, being vigilant, watching and waiting. I believe we have reached that time.

To open one’s mouth even if to voice a simple opinion, these days can muster a deadly assault on yourself, your family, and/or your property. Fear not. The Lord God will protect you if you call upon Him. But why be ignorant and invite the Satanic anger and hatred?

Be wise. Seek the direction of the Holy Spirit, watch and pray. The Holy Spirit will tell you what to do.

So be it!!!!!!!!!

Share

Sometimes Silence is a Good Thing

Perhaps readers have been wondering what happened to me that I am not posting much of anything. Well, the short explanation is that I really don’t have a lot to say…or the Holy Spirit is having me keep my mouth shut.

What is going on presently with these protests and violent uprisings (seemingly putting the kibosh to COVID-19), I know little about, and where I care about the lives of people, especially those who end up in Hell, I have little interest in all the insanity. Insanity! That’s what it is. I’ve been saying for a few years now that the world has gone mad. Can you see it? I pray that you can. I also pray you are doing something about it. I know some of you are.

At this point, nothing I can say can add anything worthwhile and so I will remain relatively quiet.

I have realized that unless the LORD GOD shows me something different, I am not sure how long true converted, born agains will have to endure the Great Tribulation. With that in mind, I am spending most of my time readying where I am living in preparation for tough times ahead. They are coming.

God bless you and if you are looking for my advice, I suggest you get away from social media as much as possible and instead of reading the words of Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest, open up your Bibles and read the Word of God. It’s the ONLY truth and you can find all THE answers there. Nothing else will do. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. You’ll never regret it.

Under guidance of the Holy Spirit, I will post again.

Share

From Police to Military State?

Are you kidding me? More proof the world, and this screwed up nation, have gone completely stark raving mad. Insane….I’m telling you.

The false “Right,” the so-called “conservatives,” i.e. Republicans and Q and his/her followers are crying out for the US Corporation to be handed over to a military state by rule. We are out of our frigging minds. Who in their right mind would be begging for any president to bring in the military in order to “restore law and order” and “protect” the citizens slaves?

For the past 5 or 6 years, while being scoffed and scorned, I tried to convey to readers that we, right after 9/11, begged to become a police state. Well, we became a police state and what did it get us? Oh, yeah, more murdering and police brutality from the “heroes” you all made them out to be after 9/11.

The majority ignorantly denied that we were now living in a police state, controlled by a central totalitarian/fascist government. And now THEY want us to be “protected” by military rule.

Evidently we have learned nothing from any of this. Instead, the right is calling for the military to take rule. What could possibly go wrong. Of course, you ignorant fools will refuse to examine historic evidence of what every other nation in the world became that was ruled by the military.

Everything is upside down and backwards! Why is that? Simple explanation is the Scriptures tell us in Isaiah 29:15 and 16 that Satan and his army of locusts, which have taken over the world, “15Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? 16Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?”

For those that have been deceived that “Q” is man’s solution to everything wrong in this country, surely, if you are not completely blinded, must be asking why you want to further destroy your freedoms by turning your lives over to an insane president and his insane military.

Isaiah also tells us (53:6), “All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (emboldening added).

The LORD GOD sent His Son for our salvation and He “…laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” The LORD God is our salvation through His son. Not Q, not Trump, not Biden, not the Pope, not Obama, not Hillary, not a church, not Hollywood, not a coronavirus mask, not social distancing. NOTHING and NOBODY else can save anyone regardless of how hard you try and how much you want to convince yourselves.

WAKE UP!

Share

Operation COVID-19: What a Friggin Joke

George Floyd had CORONAVIRUS!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Share

Open Thread – 29th Day, 5th Month, 2020, 7th Millennium, End of Days, Great Tribulation

MINNESOTA: And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

SMOKE AND MIRRORS – Q Followers Think This is a Big Deal

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  CfPruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Share

Operation COVID-19: Guidelines Through Stupidity? Or All Part of Planned Event?

Because there are still a handful of people who can actually do a bit of thinking on their own, what is pissing the public off more than the fact that they can’t see a need to lock up the whole country because of some virus, is what some people think are “laws” that are inconsistent, arbitrary, contrary, foolishness, and just plain don’t make any sense at all. Can we blame people for getting pissed off? How are THEY going to stop the violence?

I’ve heard on more than one occasion in discussions about COVID-19 is that people are saying they feel like they are being screwed over. Perhaps not the most eloquent of verbal frustrations, but an expression of frustration to say the least.

Evidently it’s not just the servitude, the slave nation, that is experiencing frustrations because of this foolishness. According to an Online publication, an Illinois judge, ruling on a lawsuit against someone who just wants to open their business and eat and pay their bills, basically said in regards to these so-called “laws” governing who can go where, when, and how, these, “… rules, regulations and consequences that are arbitrary, capricious, and completely devoid of anything even remotely approaching common sense.”

It appears at least some, perhaps all, of what is found in the link provided is true. I didn’t spend hours of time vetting this but did find many examples and smaller quotes from the mainstream presses. But it really doesn’t matter if this judge said this in regards to this one case before his court. The fact is, all of his examples cited, are true in many places all over this country, and that is what is frustrating thinking people and those who place value on rule of law and the consistency in interpreting laws and passing judgements on cases.

We can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether or not any government within this nation has the legal authority, granted to them by declarations of national emergencies, etc., but it doesn’t really matter. Governors, mayors, business owners, right on up to the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States, are handing down, what they call “laws” essentially treading all over any leftover “rights” in this land turned totalitarian and socialistic.

While many are arguing this point, absolute insanity is running the shows. The examples cited by Judge McHaney are classic examples that reveal the insanity behind stupid and unreasonable, tyrannical “bulls” that ignorant people are accepting as the new laws of the land.

McHaney cites absurdities like, you can’t get COVID from an abortion but you can from a colonoscopy; Selling pot is an “essential” business; you can cram six people in your car and go for a ride, but the same people can’t get in a boat. There are many more examples given.

And it’s true no matter where you go. We have turned to quarantining healthy people and letting prisoners out of jail while locking up people who don’t comply and assimilate into the new normal of arbitrary and capricious rulings.

Even the government’s idiots advising the president, as well as the CDC and WHO, have been all over the board, appearing to make shit up as they go along. Truth is, they haven’t figure out yet how the virus is spread or what the symptoms of having this disease are. All the while demanding stupid stuff that they have convinced the automatons are necessary to do if they want to live.

The longer this lockdown continues, and the longer mask wearing, and self-quarantining goes on, with all the evidence of completely asinine “guidelines” that, as Judge McHaney says doesn’t even “remotely approach common sense,” the angrier the natives are going to get.

This has gotten so bad and on the verge of something that will have nothing but a very bad outcome, with an incompetent, criminal government (at all levels) offering no help, one has to wonder if this is all part of the plan by these evil bastards that began with the release of a flu virus?

Share

Open Thread – 28th Day, 5th Month, 2020, 7th Millennium, End of Days, Great Tribulation

YUP!!! The World is Insane. Just Look At What is Going On, What People are Doing/Saying, Politics, Anger, Hatred. For Certain Satan’s Serpent Race Are Now In Full Control. Prepare NOW!!!!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Maine Has Black Bears…And a Few Fools

When I was a very young boy, I recall one time going to the grocery store with my mother. While there, I witnessed another young boy, perhaps a year or two younger than me (4 or 6), throw himself to the floor of the store, screaming, crying and eventually banging his head against the floor, in a fit of uncontrolled rage, simply because he wanted something on the shelf his mother would not let him have.

Quietly, the mom pushed her cart to the front of the store, spoke briefly with the cashier, left her partially-filled cart for when she intended to return, and dragged the boy outside and then…I don’t know what happened. I’m guessing what happened might have been pretty close to what my mother said to me when I asked her what the mom was going to do. Her response went something like: If you ever do that, you may not ever live long enough to see your next birthday.

Things have changed, and depending on one’s perspective, not for the better.

Let’s shift up gears for a moment and examine the acts of adults – perhaps those that didn’t fully grow up from the days of temper tantrums. These days some adults mostly resemble the actions of the 4-year-old screaming, banging his head, and demanding his own way.

Most adults love to extol the wonders of what they call democracy…but only when it is beneficial to prop up an ideology and the narrative that goes along with it. Most really cannot comprehend what a democracy is but love it when it works for them. What a selfish society we have crafted.

The American Governments, federal and state, misrepresent to the citizen slaves that they have certain “rights” (actually privileges of which can be taken away as easily as given out), among them the “right to petition the state.”

This can work well in a civilized society that isn’t manipulated into little locust totalitarians, the likes of which are as the 4-year-old banging his head and demanding his way. Regardless, the spoiled totalitarian, brought up under the banner of repetitive petitioning, goes about his or her demonstrations with the belief that regardless of what the majority have spoken in their “democratic” society, they will get what they want one way or another.

So what’s wrong with that you might ask? Well, nothing, actually. It is the system that has been created and we are subjected to all of its bad points and very few good ones. For me, it’s all about the approach and methodology used in demanding one’s way.

Maine has weathered two anti-hunting bear referendums within the past 16 years. Both times, the voters of Maine have said they don’t want little spoiled totalitarians telling those that are paid to manage the state’s wildlife, how to do it. But that doesn’t stop the little spoiled totalitarians.

Many of those spoiled totalitarians simply do not approve of hunting, fishing, trapping…basically any kind of what they might call consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources. That’s fine. It’s their uncontrolled desire to force all others to accept and abide by their political ideals, etc. Regardless as to whether years of wildlife science and management has proven that consumptive use of natural resources, when done responsibly, is a major benefit to the people and to the wildlife, spoiled totalitarian anti hunters, incapable of mounting an actual provable scientific basis for demanding an end to hunting, fishing, and trapping, have no other alternative than to resort of lying and playing on the emotions of ignorant people.

In the second of the two bear hunting referendums that Maine residents and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) endured, the MDIFW did a very respectable job of hitting the pavement to educate voters that due to the very large bear population in the state, the department needs every tool and resource it can to try to keep the population at a safe and healthy level. One of those tools that still remains a necessity in that effort, is placing baits for hunters to hunt over. It’s not how I would personally choose to bear hunt, but I understand the need to reduce the number of bears and I would never attempt to prevent anyone from participating in a legal hunting activity simply to force them to accept my ideology. That is selfish, childish, and actions of a fool.

The overwhelming majority of bears taken during the hunting and trapping seasons are done so with the use of bait. Baiting bears may not be the weapon of choice in controlling bear numbers, but until such time as the MDIFW is able to find another way of controlling bears, the managers in Augusta have continued to promote the need for this harvest tool.

Without baiting bears, harvest numbers, more than likely, would be reduced by at least half, adding even more and more bears to forests and fields that would indeed increase the already troublesome bear and human encounters that pose a threat to human safety.

Recently I read yet another Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper from one of those loud-mouthed, spoiled totalitarians who hates anything he doesn’t agree with…including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

If this man had his way, all hunting, fishing, and trapping would end and he would import wolves, mountain lions, and probably saber-toothed tigers.

He is one of those totalitarians who can’t seem to find real science to support his agenda and so he relies on the echo-chambers of the scientismist’s to promote false, outcome-based, bought and paid for, unprovable theories to promote his agenda to put an end to bear hunting and other pet projects.

His latest “petition” to the State of Maine, to change the rules of bear hunting, would, over a 10-year period of time, outlaw what he has now chosen to call bear “feeding” instead of calling it what it really is…which is bear baiting as part of the necessary process to reduce bear populations.

It appears the reason for petitioner’s upside down and backwards approach to lying to the public about bears and wildlife science, surrounds around the false, outcome-based, over-simplified, study, done in extremely general terms with no specificity in the study that is used as a broad, sweeping, brush stroke across all species, that when there is ample “food” available for wildlife, it causes those species to reproduce at higher than “normal” rates. Even to the effect that such dynamics might exist, there is no science that indicates, because it is near impossible to do, what, if any, the rate of increase in reproduction would be.

Evidently, the author of the petition now believes that if he calls bear baiting, bear feeding, it somehow has a different affect on the bears and their population, but more importantly it probably will have a false affect on public opinion and I’m sure that is what he is hoping to achieve.

In his Letter to the Editor, the author claims that bears in Maine now exceed the “natural carrying capacity” by 10,000 bears, but offers no information as to what this claim is based on. Carrying capacity, a complex algorithm to determine how many of any species of wildlife is desired by wildlife managers to live within any given habitat and/or ecosystem, cannot be implemented in shear numbers. It’s far to sophisticated which can become extremely troublesome.

No matter the complexity of carrying capacities, the petitioner blames the fact that his claim of 10,000 too many bears is the fault of MDIFW, bear hunters, and guides who use “food” for attracting bears for hunting.

The fact that actual bear baiting involves a very small comparative geographic region, including lots of bear habitat, that any “feeding” of bears for hunting purposes is so negligible it is not thought to have any real effect on the state’s bear population. To even suggest placing baits within strategic hunting locations would “feed” enough of the estimated 50,000 bears to effect bear reproduction is actually quite a silly supposition and certainly any such suggestion is not, and cannot be supported by actual science.

This totalitarian, in his insistent ignorance, states matter of factly: “Feeding bears produces more bears. This is the science.” He then demands an end to the state’s “bear feeding program.”

Only a fool, and there are too many of them, would claim that feeding bears produces more bears and that it is proven science. It is not. It is not as simple as that. One of the most difficult aspects of managing wildlife is the fact that everything about what we like to call an ecosystem is constantly changing with almost none of the changing things something that we, as managers, can control. All we really have at our disposal are well-planned, science-based hunting seasons to control populations. Even those proved problematic at times.

At best, our wildlife managers try to figure out how many of any game species there are and then to go about doing what is needed to keep those populations under control for the health of the species and for public safety. I don’t very often let the MDIFW off without having my say, but right now, I agree with them that they NEED to be able to use baiting bears to control the population. I also think that if the MDIFW believed baiting bears was causing the population to grow, they would end the practice. They have repeatedly stated the need to kill more bears. I think they have other methods available to them but refuse to use them due to social demands…which is wrong on many counts. One might think a large group of biologists and wildlife managers have more collective knowledge about how bears reproduce than one disgruntled man.

If the bear population in Maine was so low, the managers would put an end to hunting and trapping them. They do this with any game species. I would support that move providing the MDIFW has the data to show the need. Right now, the MDIFW has the data to show more bears need to be harvested each season and “feeding” bears (use of bait) is not what is causing the bears to grow in numbers.

Give it rest already and let’s encourage the MDIFW to provide more bear hunting opportunities…the ONLY way to reduce those “10,000” bears.

Below is a copy of the suggested rule changes for bear baiting and bear hunting. I would encourage as many as possible to contact the MDIFW, as there is a comment period, and share your thoughts and ideas about this petition. Thanks!

Share