June 27, 2017

Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishing
licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

 

Share

Moose Socialism: More Special Interest Allotment of Moose Permits

It appears that where once there was a “lottery” to decide who gets a limited number of moose permits for the annual Maine moose hunt, it is now a process of doling out certain numbers of permits to a wide variety of special interest groups, all the while further screwing over the people and the process of “randomly” selecting recipients for a moose permit, some of whom have been waiting for decades.

Now it appears that if you are 65 years old and have accrued 30 Moose Lottery Points – another crooked process that benefits the wealthy and puts the screws to everyone else – you can automatically be awarded a moose permit when you apply. Theoretically that could use up all that is left (which isn’t much) of moose permits that haven’t already been handed out to crony, special interest groups already.

Nonresidents will, once again get the shaft, as the allotment of moose permits given to nonresidents will be cut from 10% to 8%. One would think that the extra 2% of moose permits would revert back to the general (fake) lottery, so Maine resident hunters can have a better chance to bag a moose. But, NO! Those 2% will be “sold” to hunting outfitters to “subsidize” the hunting outfitter industry – socialized moose hunting.

Another brain child of some wealthy hoarder of moose permits (also known as a crooked politician with the ability to bullshit his way through the Legislature with such perverted nonsense), proposed and it has passed, another bill that will provide kids 10 years of age to begin paying taxes to hunt moose but aren’t allowed to do so until they get old enough. The bill is typically worded with deception saying that a 10-year-old can begin “accruing points” so that when they are old enough to hunt, they think their chances of winning are going to be higher. In truth, it’s another way for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to make money off a golden goose that is about to go extinct.

How many times have people and groups, such as the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, stood up to defend those brazen enough to dare claim that MDIFW and game management use game animals and their management practices to promote trophy hunting? And yet here we see an example of how, where once, after a little proper management, Maine was able to rebuild a seriously diminished moose herd to a point where it was decided that the herd could sustain a limited harvest. A lottery was devised and the process has gone to hell since that time, thanks mostly to ignorant and corrupt politicians looking to beef up their constituency as they look forward to reelection. Of course if you have been a beneficiary of the elitism and cronyism of the special interest groups, along with the subsidizing of your private enterprise, you think I’m an old spoil-sport, whiner.

Think what you will. But this is all truth. It’s a damned shame!

Those same people who are often chastised by the “hunting” community often say that all wildlife is for everyone. What a bunch of horse manure that has turned out to be. Hunters and license buyers pay the majority of the cost to “manage wildlife” so everyone can enjoy it, and generally speaking we don’t mind. Now, people like me and tens of thousands of other licensed outdoor sportsmen, are paying our share toward the system, to grow and maintain a moose herd, and the state’s socialists are seeing fit to take the rewards of that investment and doling it out to every special interest group in the state as well as helping to subsidize private businesses.

Every allotment of moose permits to any and all special interest groups and private enterprise, should be repealed immediately.

What B.S.

OLD HUNTER says:

 

 

Share

But Isn’t It ALL FAKE?

The Patriot Post has an article about how “nefarious,” “alarming” and “minus perspective” media reports have become concerning global warming. While the author’s information may or may not be true, does it really matter? Disputing what and how others report on “Climate Change” is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

The article states: “Like any policy discussion, the field of science can be easily distorted and misconstrued when it lacks proper perspective and insight.”

Great! But, so what? If the New York Times reports that, “nothing can be attributed to mere natural causes any more. It all has to be because of global warming,” and this is followed by a report that science can and is distorted along with a lack of honest perspective with no truth presented for readers, it is then “Fake News.” In the context of what is being written, one has to ask then if rebutting on “Fake News” doesn’t by default become “Fake News?”

Who knows what the proper terminology should be for what is being written. It’s all mostly a lie and worthless (to me) propaganda. I understand that media outlets have to make money and so they publish what they think will make them money. Not everyone can see it as such. Of course the Media hide behind their responsibility as journalists, blah, blah, blah. However, the short and long of it all is that it’s but mere entertainment and that’s why we read what we read. Who would actually read facts and figures?

The reader isn’t interested in discovering truth because to do so requires work. One has to dig beyond the emotional clap-trap. Nobody does that nor do they care. And, the media knows that and that’s why they entertain their readers with Fake News because THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT TO READ AND HEAR!

Consequently what we are left with is Fake News, faking out the fakers who fake news.

Share

Guns and the Left’s Unfailing Insistence on Irrational Thought

This morning I was reading an article from a Maine Online publication about how the Legislature is going to consider a bill that would make it impossible for a convicted felon to own a muzzle-loading weapon, i.e. black powder gun. As I understand the current law, the Federal Government does not recognize a muzzle-loading gun as an official weapon. In Maine, where it is generally unlawful for a convicted felon to own even a muzzle-loading gun, he or she can make application to the State’s Commissioner of Public Safety for an exemption to that prohibition.

The argument in favor of the new proposed law, as presented by this newspaper, is a poor one and certainly exemplifies the irrational thoughts of leftist progressives. I’m not here to argue whether this law is good or bad, right or wrong, and whether or not a muzzle-loading gun is or is not a weapon. I’m here to expose the irrational thought that drives emotions when it comes to making decisions – such as the banning of guns or the making of irrational and useless laws.

This newspaper uses as the foundation of it’s argument is an event that happened in Maine 10 years ago, when a hunter, hunting with a muzzle-loading rifle, mistook his target and shot and killed a woman in the field behind her house. It was a tragic event. Maine law is very strict about the responsibility of the hunter to identify the target. Such was not the case here and it ended in unnecessary tragedy.

The hunter was not a “dangerous felon.” As a matter of fact he wasn’t even a felon. If memory serves me, the man had no criminal record and was a decent man within his community. His crime? Poor judgement and decision making. To err is human.

So, to a rational thinker, would this proposed new law, had it been in effect at the time, have prevented the death of an innocent young woman? Of course not.

However, under present law, the convicted felon can petition the Commissioner of Public Safety to allow an exemption of the state’s ban against felons owning a muzzle-loading gun. Should this felon be granted an exemption? I dunno, however, can any of us make that determination without knowing what the guidelines and requirements are that must be met before the Commissioner can permit such an exemption? Is this a clear cut case of forever banning this man from ever owning a gun? You’ll have to decide that. Forever is a long time. How long should he be punished?

The point here is that the proposed law is nonsense. It’s nonsense because it is stating in outright fashion that when the State of Maine made it’s current law allowing for exemptions, those making the law didn’t know what they were doing and that the process is flawed so that “dangerous felons” can have easy access to a gun.

Another question to ask is, how many exemptions have been granted by the Commissioner of Public Safety and how many, if there are any, of those exemptions resulted in crime committed with a muzzle-loading gun? A criminal is a criminal and criminals most often are criminals because they had total disregard of laws, such as the one being proposed.

Unless there is ample proof that the system in place is allowing for violent crimes that might have been prevented, this proposal is nothing more than Leftist piling on of totalitarian repression – emotional clap-trap.

Enough already.

Share

What Kind of Lazy-Ass Hunting is This?

One proposed bill in Maine concerning deer hunting is LD 62, an act that would legalize hunting deer over bait. Most already know I oppose this as it is not a necessary tool to keep deer populations in check, among other things, and I also find it ridiculous that it is legal to plant a “food crop” specifically for deer and hunt over that, as somehow being that much different than hunting over a pile of bait. Instead of increasing the ability to bait, it’s time MDIFW enacted a law making it illegal to hunt over food crops – those specifically planted at deer bait.

However…..

In George Smith’s article about discussion at the committee level on LD 62, there are two distinct comments/testimony made by those in attendance that readers should pay attention to.

One is a man named Guy Randlett, described as a Maine Guide who, among other things, said this: “Sitting in a nice dry ground blind in a comfortable chair from dawn till dusk only enhances it all for me.”

The second testimony is that of Dave Kelso, who favored passage of the bill. Among many issues he presented, he stated: “By allowing baiting for deer, landowners would be in a position to charge a lease fee for bait sites.” In addition, this: “The way that we hunt in Maine is changing and is going to change even more just in my lifetime. Leases and hunt clubs are going to come to Maine. You are going to be hearing about antler restrictions. With limited land and the possibility of having to judge a deer before pulling the trigger, baiting only makes sense to allow everyone an equal opportunity.”

If this is the direction that Maine wants to take its deer hunting, count me out. I realize that each hunter has his own preferences for hunting within the laws that regulate it. I would not suggest denying anybody of those choices. However, what is being described here, as though it is something good, in no way resembles the traditional deer hunting I grew up with. Not unlike catch and release fishing, I find lounging in a recliner waiting for a buck with big enough antlers to satisfy one’s qualifications of “trophy” as being quite perverse.

Because hunting deer while sitting in a blind with all the modern conveniences, staring at a bait pile, is an indication of how deer hunting is changing, I would suggest that, unless I’m the only one left alive who likes traditional deer hunting, we do everything in our power to stop this “progressive” change that will bastardize a once precious tradition.

Share

The Critical Thinking Void

Most readers have run across the term “critical thinking.” So, let’s see what Google has to say about critical thinking : “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”

Let’s examine this statement. Let’s begin with the last part of this: “in order to form a judgement.” What is judgement? “the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.” Can we come to an understanding on this word “judgement?” Not if it involves sensibility.

Ability: 1. “possession of the means or skill to do something.” 2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area.”

Sensible: 1. “(of a statement or course of action) chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.” 2. readily perceived; appreciable.”

In order to form a judgement, utilizing “critical thinking” skills, one must possess the means or skill, i.e. have talent or proficiency, to reach a conclusion that is considered to be chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence, that is likely to be of benefit (to someone or something) and thus often recognizable and appreciable. Got it?

Let’s look closer at the definition given for “critical thinking.”

Critical thinking is “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue.” Three keys words are present in this statement that require further analysis (woops! Sorry).

Analysis: “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.”

Examination: “a detailed inspection or investigation.”

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

From above we should have gained understanding about how to form a judgement. But first, we must understand that a person must have ability to put together a detailed examination, inspection, and investigation of a subject matter. Not only does one have to possess this ability but for their judgement to be sensible or hold any real benefit to someone or something, the analysis must be objective.

If you haven’t figured this out yet, this is extremely difficult to do, but it certainly does not stop the pretenders.

From a so-called professional level, in the post-normal world we live, judgements passed on to the public are not objective and few contain any real depth of analysis and evaluation. Outcome-based research does not require critical thinking.

On a near daily basis I read or listen to others make such bizarre statements as, “You’re reading the wrong stuff!” or “You really need to read what so-and-so wrote about such-and-such. It’s fact!” “I am the one with the truth!”

It is not a stretch to exclaim that critical thinking in it’s purest sense, does not exist in this world. One can discuss the level of anyone’s ability to carry out an objective, and thorough examination of any subject. What’s perhaps most difficult to have any influence over is a person’s objectivity – in other words they harbor no influences from anyone or anything. It is impossible to be objective when there’s money involved. Isn’t money involved in everything?

I also suppose there is argument that can be made as to whether a “detailed inspection or investigation” into another person’s analysis is factual, beyond the fact they may have cited another person. Failure to examine opposing ideas, most often perpetuates the echo chamber effect.

From the social side of things, what is nearly 100% of the time being presented as “fact,” is nothing but someone’s opinion, void of any critical thinking skills, rattling around in the echo chambers of social media. Mostly likely what is promoted as fact is nothing but propaganda, created for reasons other than to create knowledge. It is a far cry to draw a conclusion based on the employment of critical thinking, utilizing the skills necessary for analysis and evaluation, than it is to pass on a piece of propaganda garbage most likely designed to foment hatred, anger and most importantly to assure that the masses remain ignorant at all costs. After all, knowledge is an absolute threat to the fascists who want to control your every move.

Lost, probably by design, is to know the difference between an opinion and honest, deep, forensic analysis.

We are all guilty of taking what we think sounds good and perpetuating it as fact. It is what we are programmed to do. People of today cannot begin to see that the reason for their anger and hostility toward other people – you know, from that other political party – is because 99% of the people, or more, wouldn’t know, and don’t care to know, what information holds value because it was derived honestly. In addition, they will not take the time to do the work. The purveyors of dirty, rotten, filth in media (this includes Facebook, Twitter, etc.) know that and take full advantage of you. Those of us who work exceptionally hard to carry out the analyses, employing critical thinking skills, are ridiculed and disregarded on a continuing basis. But we persist.

I used to have a quote in the banner at the top of this website that said, “The highest form of ignorance is to disregard something you don’t know anything about.” – Wayne Dyer

I remember the day when a drive-by troll stopped long enough to comment that he thought I was the  ignorant one, because I had the quote and published stuff he didn’t agree with. I removed the quote. Not because this drive-by criticized it, but because I realized the quote was inaccurate. I witnessed a higher form of ignorance.

I don’t spend the time to present stuff that I expect you will agree with. Using critical thinking skills, I present my analysis. What you do with it is your business.

I have been asked before, “Are you a republican?” I calmly answer “No.”

“Are you a democrat?” Again the answer is “No.”

“Independent?” – “No.”

“Libertarian?” – “No.”

“Then what are you?” Answer: “A man with a brain.”

And I thank my Creator everyday for the skills to research and think critically.

I am so Blessed!

Share

An Open Letter To President Donald Trump

*Editor’s Note* – The views expressed in the accompanied “Open Letter” may not totally express the opinions of this editor. Thank you.

Dear President Trump;
 
There are millions of us in this country who truly hope that you were sincere and honest about appointing a commission to investigate Hillary and Bill Clinton, and to hold them accountable for all the injustice they have inflicted upon this country.  Those two showed their true character and total selfishness when leaving the White House – illegally taking with them priceless National Heirlooms.  They truly considered themselves the “King & Queen of America” – free to live as they saw fit, outside of the laws which govern all the rest of the country’s citizens.
Whether you follow through with that campaign promise or not, there was one extreme criminal act of fraud and theft committed under the administration of William Jefferson Clinton that truly needs to be revisited.  That was the illegal introduction of a non-native wolf subspecies into the Northern U.S. Rockies during the early to mid-1990’s – and how those invasive predators were wrongfully allowed to destroy big game populations which took a hundred years to rebuild from the near extinction levels of the 1890’s and early 1900’s.  This criminal act was committed by none other than the United States Fish and Wildlife Service – an agency whose mandated mission is supposed to be the conservation of wildlife populations.
Since the early 1900’s, America’s sportsmen have fully funded the conservation efforts which brought huntable species back from that near total loss.  Through the years, the money that hunters and fishermen have spent to purchase hunting and fishing licenses has also funded the establishment and annual operations of State Game & Fish Departments.  All of this was accomplished without burdening the average taxpayer.  It was all financed by the very sportsmen who valued a bounty of game.  Those same hunters and fishermen also strongly supported imposing excise taxes on hunting, shooting and fishing equipment to finance the improvement and expansion of healthy and suitable habitat for game and fish – under the Pittman-Robertson Act (1937) and the Dingell-Johnson Act (1950).
 
The dumping of North-Central Canadian wolves into the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in 1995-1996 had absolutely nothing to do with restoring wolves to the region.  The native subspecies of wolf still existed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming – and could be found in small isolated packs – supposedly protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Under pressure from radical environmental and animal rights groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually violated the Endangered Species Act when it covertly flew wolves in from Alberta, housed them inside of Yellowstone National Park, and unleashed those wolves into one of the richest wildlife regions of the United States.  
Those same wolves, and their offspring, quickly killed out the smaller endangered native wolf, and in short order began to negatively impact elk, moose, deer and other big game populations.  When game became harder for them to hunt, the larger and more aggressive Canadian wolves turned to feeding on cattle, horses and other livestock.   
Within 15 years, the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd had been drastically reduced from around 22,000 (in 1995) to around 6,000 by 2010.  Today, that herd is down to around 3,000 animals.  That loss is directly due to never ending predation by wolves, which quickly kill out the young of the year, eliminating any chance of the herd reversing the dramatic decline.  As the wolves proliferated and began to spread rapidly, that same level of wolf predation has destroyed elk herds up and down the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains by 80-percent – destroying along with that loss of game the hunting opportunities for the very same sportsmen who have funded real wildlife conservation.
 
What makes this crime so much more severe, is the manner in which USFWS acquired the money for funding the project – which Congress had already denied.
 
The USFWS literally embezzled the money out of the Pittman-Robertson funds, which by law were to be used exclusively for the improvement of wildlife habitat.  The agency did a great job of hiding the theft of these sportsman provided dollars until Jim Beers, a former Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations, blew the whistle on the stolen funds. A Congressional Hearing was convened on that robbery, but the best they could narrow it down to was that between $60- and $70-million were misappropriated by the USFWS, under the leadership of, then, Director Jamie Rappaport Clark.
USFWS had authorized the illegal use of those funds to foot the bill for a number of projects, including the introduction of non-native wolves into the American West.  Other non-approved projects, or whims, were the building of a new Regional USFWS Office in California, new vehicles for the USFWS, bonuses of up to $30,000 (including for Director Clark herself), moving expenses for USFWS employees, the purchase of “National Refuge” land for the building of a prison, and a slush fund for upper USFWS management. 
 
So, who was held accountable?  No One!
 
Today, Jamie Rappaport Clark is serving as the CEO of the animal rights group known as Defenders of Wildlife, knocking down some $300,000 a year.  Defenders of Wildlife is one of the radical environmental groups which have used the Equal Access to Justice Act to keep its coffers filled.  Collectively, this “Non-Profit Organization”, and dozens of other phony “Wildlife & Environmental” groups have milked the wolf cash cow for several billion taxpayer dollars over the past twenty years.
Another criminal in all of this would be the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project coordinator, Ed Bangs.  The USFWS did its best to keep “facts and figures” hidden.  There really is no way to put a figure on just how many stolen sportsman dollars were spent to illegally bring those wolves across the International Boundary between Canada and the United States.  According to the USFWS’s own extremely strict regulations, Form No. 3-177 must be submitted in order to bring any live wildlife or fish species into this country.  That form identifies the exact subspecies being imported…the exact number being brought across the border…and the exact cost of the shipment.  Those are all “exact” things that USFWS apparently did not want the American public to know.  Bangs failed to ever file that “mandatory” form.  Other than Ed Bangs himself, no one likely knows the exact cost of paying Alberta trappers to live trap those wolves…or exactly how many shipments were actually made…or the exact number of Canadian wolves that were literally dumped into Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
 
Further tainting those transplants has been speculation that many of the so-called “wolves” that project leader Bangs did bring into the U.S. were actually wolf-sled dog hybrid crosses.  Bangs has been quoted saying, “If it looks like a wolf…and can live in the wild…and reproduce…then I consider it a wolf.”  That’s just another violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Please keep in mind, all of this began under the Bill Clinton administration.  Along the way there have been many accusations of U.S. Senators and Representatives being paid off…of Federal Judges accepting under the table money…or Governors receiving incentive to “Look The Other Way”.  Both Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game have long allowed the destruction of big game populations to continue far too long…not to have had some of those millions of dirty dollar thrown their way.  Who knows, Bill Clinton himself might have pocketed a few million dollars.
 
The Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project has been the dirtiest and darkest chapter in wildlife conservation in this country.  Under the Obama administration very little was done to clean up this mess, or to hold guilty individuals and the less than genuine organizations responsible.  But, that’s understandable.  All of this has nothing to do with “wolf conservation” … but rather everything to do about the United Nations’ goal of pushing people off the land and into the cities – Agenda 21. 
You know as well as I do, that Obama’s run for the presidency was totally orchestrated and largely paid for by George Soros, and his billionaire friends.  Soros and others within the crowd he tends to associate with are the largest supporters of the United Nations – and its futuristic goals of drastically reducing the human population of Planet Earth…centralizing human settlements…and returning a vast majority of this planet to wilderness areas where predators rule and keep wildlife populations in check.
 
Obama has been a part of that same idiotic ideology, explaining his real reason for pushing so hard for gun control, and supporting the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.  As long as we have the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” in this country, the U.N.’s pipe dream is just that.
 
Mr. President, if you honestly want to go down in the history of this country as being one of the “Greatest Presidents” of the United States, begin by fully investigating the corruption, lies, deceit, collusion and theft surrounding the forced Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project, and similar wolf projects in the Northern Midwest…in the Southwest…and along the Eastern Seaboard.  Hold those responsible fully accountable, and return the feeling to Americans that we do indeed live in “The Land of The Free”. 
 
Ryan Zinke is the right man for Secretary of the Interior … and Jim Beers, the 32 year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who blew the whistle on the theft of Pittman-Robertson Funds for financing the destructive wolf projects, is the man to clean up that filthy federal agency.
 
Respectfully Yours,
Toby Bridges,
Lobo Watch 2
Missoula, Montana
Share

When You Challenge Government’s Narrative

*Scroll for Update*

It has been written about often that in the 1960s, the CIA began an official and orchestrated campaign to destroy and/or discredit anyone who might challenge the official narrative. Often that official narrative is nothing more than lies/propaganda, designed most often to not only ridicule the one with the challenge but at the same time to foment distrust, along with hatred, among the masses of automatons. A fearful mass of nonthinkers is much easier to control and convince.

That extremely powerful label became, “The Conspiracy Theorist.”

We still hear it today, perhaps more than at anytime in our history, but has the label achieved its useful life expectancy? I believe it has. Welcome “Fake News.”

It appears to have begun at about the same time Hillary Clinton was going down in defeat in her election bid to become the next Puppet-in-Chief of the United States Corporation. She blamed her loss on “Fake News.” Bear in mind that even though Hillary Clinton may not have won the election, she and her perverted husband are too powerful to simply drop out of the picture.

The term might be surprising but the action, targeted against “alternative” Online news sites, blogs, etc., is actually, in the context of the rapidly moving Cyberspace, something old. Mainstream Media loathed the day when the Internet provided platforms for anyone wishing to provide alternative information – real or imagined. With the rapid growth of digital technology, newspapers and magazines dropped dead. Those media giants, whom we know are nothing but the mouthpiece of the CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, et. al., were losing their grip on propagandizing the U.S. and the rest of the world, say nothing about money. They tried, unsuccessfully to demean and ridicule the tens of thousands of websites, some very powerful and accurate, refuting the efforts of the Media in their march to systematically finish destroying what was left of a non-thinking readership’s minds. That attempt may have backfired somewhat, however, it only helped to bolster the more powerful “fake news” sites on the Net.

Something different had to be done to save the Powers and Principalities of the controlled worldwide Media. Thus began the promotion of the term “Fake News.” Much like Conspiracy Theorist, extremely successful in limiting anyone attempting to disprove the official politic of the Ruling Establishment, this new term is the necessary, modern-day replacement of conspiracy theorist. The term conspiracy theorist will never lose its firm grip, as the people, with fear ingrained into them and love of government forefront of their minds, will continue to use the term like a plumber uses a “roto-rooter.”

The result of the Conspiracy Theorist campaign is quite evident, as can be seen if you are anyone who dares open their mouth to speak against the official narrative. The same powerful media giants, controlled by the CIA, used the conspiracy theorist label and began to systematically brainwash the masses to become their own instruments to destroy attempts to dispel government lies.

Will the new “Fake News” hallmark take root as effectively as conspiracy theorist has? Only time will tell. Perhaps the push to destroy the minds of men across the globe through cellphone, “eye”pads, laptops, tablets, etc., with the onset of “The Internet,” had a bloodline that was not anticipated. Perhaps they didn’t think “Fake News” would grow so big and powerful and something needs to be done.

Eventually, the Internet will be fiercely censored and controlled by Government. It cannot be allowed to provide a platform in which a portion of it operates in opposition to (outside of controlled opposition) the official narrative of Government lies and propaganda. Until that time arrives, the stage will be set to give the automatons reason to ask for greater censorship and control over the Internet by Government as a means of protecting us all from “Fake News.”

Brilliant!

But, Don’t Go Look!

Because you probably think this is Fake News!

*Update* – 12/9/2016 – 12:58 am

It also appears that the Pope (the antichrist) has joined in (or actually is the orchestrate of the “Fake News” movement) the call to destroy all things not government sanctioned and controlled.

Pope Calls Fake News like “Fecal Fetish.” That would be like him and little boy fetish.

Share

Maine Governor Says 3 Ballot Questions are “Unconstitutional”

According the Maine Wire, in an article written by Governor Paul LePage, he states: “As Governor, I am sworn to uphold the Constitutions of Maine and the United States of America. I take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my suit pocket every day.

In Maine, I believe three of the questions on the November ballot are unconstitutional. If they pass it will be impossible to uphold my oath of office.”<<<Read More>>>

To claim something to be “unconstitutional,” isn’t it a bit of an over-used excuse? One might even argue it a cliche. I am no constitutional scholar, and even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn once, I can’t say that qualifies me to be an expert. I am, however, perhaps a bit more versed in constitutional history than your average Joe – no offense intended to Joes everywhere.

I would assume that to declare that a law or proposed law to be “unconstitutional” it must be directly in opposition to the constitution of the state being referenced – in this case Maine, or the Federal Government. The author also says that he believes some of the ballot questions, if passed, would violate the U.S. Constitution as well. Would it?

First, a fundamental error often made by lay people, like myself, is lack of understanding between what might be considered “unconstitutional” and what could be “without precedence.”

In the case of the Maine Governor’s claim of the unconstitutionality of three ballot questions, I suppose we must take a look at the Maine Constitution first. Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, in part reads: “The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.” Reads like a lawyer’s dream come true doesn’t it?

In this day and age of immorality, where wrong is now right, where bad is good, the end justifies the means, etc. what and who determines what is “reasonable” and “not repugnant?” Surely you understand that the Maine Constitution gives the Legislature the power and authority to “make and establish” any and all laws they deem in the best interest of the Maine (P)?people.

But such a delegation of power is not just found in the Maine Constitution. The U.S. Constitution states the same. In Article I, Section 8, we read: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Read that one a few times.

Is it not appropriate to question whether such constitutional statements give the Congress of the United States, and in this case, the state of Maine, authority to create and establish any law(s) they deem within the “reasonable,” “necessary,” and “proper” within the limiting (or not limiting) terms of the sections of the constitution?

If, in Maine, Question 3 is in violation of the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 16, “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”, then perhaps the petition for citizen referral process is faulty by allowing “unconstitutional” proposals to find their way to a public vote. Cannot the Maine Legislature, upon acknowledgement that Question 3 violates Article I, Section 16, veto the law should it pass? Or does Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, of the Maine Constitution and U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, have legislative power over any and all other laws if deemed necessary by a partisan legislature?

But constitutional proclamations are not the only law of the land. Precedence and Policy, especially in this day and age of corrupt politics, certainly disregards any constitutional guidelines or regulations. We regularly are witness to the establishment of “Policy” with each successive administration voted into office.

Many of us recall when Speaker of the U.S. House was asked if the newly passed “Obamacare” was constitutional, her reply was “you’re kidding right?” Not that I think Nancy Pelosi is actually intelligent enough to understand what she was saying beyond her own ignorance, can there really be any questioning a passage of a law, that many of us do think is “unconstitutional” when the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government can operate under Article I, Section 8. With such authority, Congress can enact any law they well please, with perhaps some push back from the people to deal with. This push back only matters when it vote gathering time.

If there is any hope of fighting against those proposed laws, it is through the battle against Precedence and Policy and the creation of your own precedence and policy, if there is such a thing.

In Maine’s case, and the argument offered by the governor, it is my opinion that, via the referendum process, for what it’s worth, Question 3 goes beyond whether it’s constitutional or not and as such presents a poor argument against the proposal. While in this country Precedence and Policy have altered the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and in this case the State of Maine’s Right to Bear Arms, argument should be made about, not only the absolute destruction of an inalienable right, but that in Maine, there is no precedence or policy that dismantles the “never shall be questioned” aspect of Article I, Section 16. In addition, it should be vehemently pointed out that in the most recent Second Amendment voting in Maine, voters opted to begin tearing down the obstacles that destroy the liberty of self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, by passing a, so-called, Constitutional Carry law, in which Maine people, a plurality, wanted to be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to subject themselves to the strong arm of the Federal and State governments.

Now that’s precedence! Unconstitutional is a dead argument.

 

 

Share

Is There Outrage? Man Kills Bear With a Spear

I realize the risk I am taking by even attempting to point out the obvious, emotional clap-trap and hypocrisy showing its ugly side from both “hunters” and “animal rights” people.

I found on Drudge, a link to an article about how both hunters and environmentalists are “outraged” over a person, whom they call a “hunter” who filmed his act of hunting a bear over a pile of bait, manipulating himself to get close enough to throw a spear (labeled “home made” in the article) at and kill a black bear. The hunt took place in Canada; legally I am presuming.

What of that so-called outrage?

First, let me write from a position of transparency. I have hunted for close to 55 years. I’ve never shot a bear. Never wanted to shoot a bear. Never hunted specifically for bear. I’ve never hunted over bait, but I understand when game management makes adjustments to hunting techniques in order to achieve game management goals. I’ve never hunted on a hunting ranch, behind fences, nor do I have any desire to do so. I hunt for the enjoyment and I kill to eat.

If we take a closer look at the nonsense of the article, with an open mind, perhaps rationality can make a bit more sense of what took place. The article epitomizes the emotional nonsense often associated with acts of hunting or killing animals. This is only understood when we examine that those who emote the so-called outrage, do so from the perspective that animals are like men in all senses of the definition, i.e. that it has feelings, understands and experiences human traits such as suffering, agony, pain, diminution of pride, experiences humiliation, understands respect, etc.

If this is a person’s mindset about animals, there is little hope that any sense of understanding can be gained or taught. And this is what the news article does. In addition, Drudge, obviously more interested in getting his website traffic higher, publishes this clap-trap nonsense hoping to embellish the event regardless of any truth.

It would only be right to take a look at the “hunter” in this case. From the article, we discover he was a former athlete – a javelin thrower in college. Presently he evidently owns a “fitness company” and is described in the article as a “bodybuilder” and “fitness fanatic.” Does this fact alone give understanding as to how a person of this background, an obvious narcissist, as I believe all bodybuilders must be, would go out of his way to film the event (mostly of himself) and then react the way he did. Perhaps his biggest wrong in this entire event was that he filmed it and put it up on YouTube before giving it much thought to his self-centered reactions, etc.

Upon examination of the article, obviously a one-sided diatribe of emotional, value-laced idiocy, it’s clear to see that no rational thought was put into it. Here’s a grocery list of the terms and adjectives used in this article to describe the hunt, the hunted, and the hunter:

Bloodthirsty; disturbing; sick; slaughtering; slow and painful; poor animal; intestines pour out of its stomach; fitness fanatic; cruel; cheap act; colossal beast; disgusting; mindless jackass; shameless stunt; demean the animal; shameful spectacle of pseudo bravado; pure selfish bloodlust; heartlessly slaughtered for fun; desire for a thrill; expense of innocent life.

Of course all descriptions of the event are value-weighted, which really means nothing to anyone except those offering their perspective of their ideology and theories about animals. Not that it matters to anyone else, but the first time I clicked on the news article, I had to sit through about 20 seconds of an advertisement about MTV. From my perspective, what goes on regularly on MTV is as disgusting, perhaps more so, than the killing of this bear and filming it. MTV, one of the great promoters of social decadence, immorality, violence, homosexuality, racism, bigotry, sexism, hatred, drug and alcohol use and abuse, introduces the article in which we are left to understand that what MTV promotes is acceptable behavior, at least by the newspaper, and what happens in a video of a bear hunt is not. It seems to me this society has things quite mixed up.

The article says, but provides no links to substantiate, that a “hunter” from a “popular” US hunting website finds the video “disgusting.” Supposedly, the hunter claims this act of spearing a bear “demeans” the bear and then he chastises the hunter demanding he “show some respect for the animal.” Seriously, with a straight face, can you “demean” a bear? And can a bear recognize the actions of this hunter as being disrespectful? This supposed same hunter is quoted as saying, “If you want to take an animal humanely (which you obviously could care less about) then shoot it with a rifle.” What I would like to know is how, specifically taking an animal with a rifle, is more humane than with a spear? But, first, define “humane.” Humane is of or pertaining to human traits. Humans have a brain that offers them the ability to place values on certain actions and reactions of persons. Animals do not. Sorry if I’ve startled anyone here.

This hunter, said to have left a comment on the hunting website, and other environmentalists, think it’s wrong that the hunter, shows happy and excitable emotions after killing the bear. If hunters want to think of this act, whether it’s the method of kill or the reactions of the hunter, as something we have trouble with, then is it because for so many years we have come to accept the televised hunting shows of killing wild game, and hunters showing excitement and happiness over their kill, and this is somehow different? Oh, yes. Lest I forget. Film editing has managed to remove the “disgusting” and “inhumane” events that go on during the filming of an “ethical” and “humane” hunt for enjoyment and a “trophy.”

We are left with making up our minds as to who is lying and who is not in the article. The author of the article says the guides went back the next day to locate the bear. The environmentalists say the bear “MIGHT” have suffered for 20 hours or more. The hunter said it was a clean, ethical kill, that the bear went 60 yards and dropped dead. Well, which was it and does it really matter?

Assuming the entire hunt was legal, then what’s the big deal. All animal worshipers react emotionally to hunting and trapping. It’s what they do! This is nothing new. I don’t understand the need to film every act that people do and plaster it all over the Internet; in this case a bear hunt. But, then again, I don’t understand the need of people who react the way they do to films of hunting, to watch the videos and agonize over them. Making the videos and watching them in agony – there is something quite perverse in both events.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Share