June 24, 2017

Are We Good Stewards of Our Environment?

During a radio interview with my friends at Shake, Rattle and Troll, I was asked a few questions, some of which I don’t think I answered succinctly or expressed myself to the specifics of what was on my mind at the time of the interview. It is one of the difficulties one might face when doing radio interviews, live and without foreknowledge of what questions would be asked. Any problems that might have happened were not the fault of anyone at Shake, Rattle and Troll.

One specific question I was asked, I would like to clear up any misconceptions and better explain my answer. I was asked if I thought that in this country man has been a good steward of our environment. I answered yes, which might have caught some off guard. Not to make excuses but my mind was focused on wolves…after all, my book about wolves was what I was asked to talk about and answer questions.

I did answer the question as it might pertain to whether or not man has been a good steward concerning our attempts to sustain populations of wildlife. Over all, I think we have. There are exceptions, as always, and what is never honestly considered in such discussions is how much natural occurrences contribute to loss of wildlife. The finger is always and quickly pointed to the evils of man.

We are only kidding ourselves to think it’s an easy task to find some kind of equilibrium of happiness and satisfaction between consumptive users of our natural resources and the environmentalists who want nothing touched.

I stated that I believe people want clean water and clean air but that I didn’t think they knew how to achieve that. I didn’t have time to further explain. It’s easy to talk about having clean water and clean air, but what are those? Who gets to define clean air and clean water and by what standards do they go by. Leaving it up to governments is a huge mistake, however, too many trust their government. Yikes!

We may all be convinced that we have clean water, land and air, but in many cases we have been lied to. We talk about “clean” drinking water only to find out it may be clean by someone’s standards while the water is laced with harmful chemicals. But, we don’t talk about that. We see pretty parks and pretty flowers and plants and to our uneducated eye, it must all be clean. We briefly look to the sky and if we see haze, we are conditioned to believe it is pollution and yet if we see chemical trails from aerosol spraying, we are told it is condensation even though the trail lingers for the duration of the day and into the night.

We want clean air and clean water but we are not getting it. We are told of the strides we have made to “scrub” our smoke stacks and clean up exhaust emissions, while at the same time corporate America is given a free pass and Americans foot the bill.

I could go on and on. If I were to answer the question posed in a more general fashion, then I would have to say that man has not been good stewards of our environment because those who take charge of that mission are lying, stealing, cheating thieves. If a problem surfaces it’s blamed on “man,” that is the common man, i.e. you and I. And we are forced to pay because we are citizen slaves to a corporate constitution that says we will pay all the debt….period.

A second question I was asked was about whether I thought wolf (re)introduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Desert Southwest and the Southeast were good things. I answered no and further stated that it was a criminal enterprise. If we had had the entire day on the radio we could have discussed this issue and would still have only scratched the surface. That’s why you should by my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?”

Beyond the criminal enterprise, what makes the (re)introduction bad can be assessed in two simple observations. 1.) The opportunity for citizens to hunt for game and food has been seriously reduced in many places, due to wolves tearing hell out of the elk, deer and moose herds. This should be unacceptable. 2.) The unnecessary loss of livestock (private property) and a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Yehwah’s given right not man’s). It is a testimony to the direction this country has gone that shows that any animal should be given priority over the well-being of man.

Another point I wished I had the time to discuss was the section in my book all about how the process of devising the Environmental Impact Statement was rooted in fraud and ignorance. Every item listed for consideration in the drafting of the EIS that was of concern to the people and property was blatantly disregarded. As a matter of fact, officials who wrote the EIS came right out and said it was only considering those things that positively benefited the wolf or placed the wolf in a positive light. In other words, man did not matter.

One blatant example of this can be seen when it was asked of the Government’s wolf officials, if they intended to vaccinate the wolf to prevent the spread of disease (to humans), etc. the answer went directly to their point: They would do everything necessary to protect the wolf from any harm or illness.

Since the drafting of the EIS, every item disregarded because the Government said it was not worthy of consideration, are the only issues that remain unsolved and pose the biggest challenges to the public’s health and safety and the protection of game herds.

The last thing I wanted to better explain had to do with my comments about the perverse nature Americans have been manipulated into when it comes to animals. It was agreed upon by those conducting the interview, and myself, that it is a serious problem in this country when people place any animal, wild or domestic, on a plain of existence equal to or greater than man. I tried to explain that doing such was in contradiction to the Scriptures and our Creators intention for the role that animals would play in consideration of His creation of Man.

I went so far as to state that these actions were an abomination to the Creator. And it is. It is because playing gOD and attempting to change His order of Existence is making a mockery of Yehwah and His work. That is an abomination. Abominations directed at Yehwah will never go unpunished.

If your basic belief system is not focused on the Scriptures and the Creation of the Almighty, I would not expect you to agree with or even understand this position.

But now you better understand mine.

Share

By Funding Trophy Wolf Hunts, We’re Destroying Real Game Hunts

wolfutah*Editor’s Note* – This post first appeared on this website on October 8, 2014. It was requested of me to republish it as a means of updating the importance of the article as a prediction of the future.

It seems just a short while ago that wolf (re)introduction happened – 1995 and 1996. A lot of water has passed under the bridge and as the water moved downstream, it has blended in with a lot of other water, not becoming lost but perhaps unrecognizable.

As most of you know, I’m writing a book about wolves. Actually it’s really not about wolves other than to point out the obvious behaviors of the animal. The book is more about the corruption. However, in working to put all this information together, I’ve come across some things that I had written about in which I had actually forgotten.

It really began in early 2009, when there was a glimmer of hope that wolves might come off the Endangered list and residents in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could begin killing the animal to get it back down to 100 wolves as promised in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. What? Had you forgotten?

Around about that same time, I began reading about the plans Idaho was going to begin formulating in preparation for wolf hunts. I said then that utilizing a season for “trophy” wolf hunting would not work.

I wrote a five-part series that I know some of you have read, perhaps more than once, called “To Catch a Wolf” – an historical account of the extreme difficulty people had throughout history trying to control wolves to stop them from killing livestock and attacking people.

The real joke was when Idaho officials, in a fraudulent attempt to convince anyone who would blindly listen, that trophy hunting wolves, was going to protect the elk, deer and moose herds. This did not happen. As a matter of fact, it so much did not happen, that Idaho Fish and Game took to helicopters to gun down wolves in the Lolo Region because officials were willing to admit there was a wolf problem….or maybe they were just placating the sportsmen. They killed 5 wolves and yet somehow they want sportsmen to believe that a trophy hunting season will protect the game herds?

The myth here is that increasing or decreasing wolf tags will grow or shrink elk, deer and moose herds. Sorry, but controlling elk, deer and moose tags controls elk, deer and moose herds. Select-harvesting a handful of wolves does nothing to protect game herds.

Why, then, are Idaho sportsmen continuing to fund a fraudulent trophy wolf hunting season that may actually be causing the further destruction of the elk, deer and moose they so much wish to protect and grow?

On November 30, 2012, I wrote and published the following article. I took the liberty to embolden some statements I wish to now more fully draw your attention to.

Trophy Hunting Season on Wolves Destroying More Elk, Moose and Deer?

Recently I read a comment made by Bob Ream, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Commission, state that:

We [MFWP] have implemented more and more aggressive wolf harvests. We also increased lion harvests considerably this year.

The word aggressive is certainly an overused adjective used much in the same fashion as say a male peacock when he displays his tail feathers. In the context used in the quote above, I’m assuming Mr. Ream intended his use of the word aggressive to mean something to be proud of, a feat of accomplishment or something related. But when talking about wolves, killing, attacks, predation, hunting, trapping, disease and every aspect associated with gray wolves, “implementing[ed] more and more aggressive wolf harvests” kind of rings a bit hollow.

In its simplest form, wolves, at least under the existing conditions in most of Montana, Idaho and Wildlife, grow and expand at a rate of anywhere between 20% and 30%, I am told and have read as well. Estimates of wolf populations mean little except in political and emotional battles because nobody knows how many there are and they are lying if they tell you otherwise. For the sake of argument, I have read that the tri-state region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have at least 6,000 wolves. On the top end I’ve heard 15,000 but I’m going to guess that might be high but then again I don’t live there and spend time in the woods.

If there were 6,000 wolves then math tells us that 1200 – 1800 wolves should be killed each year just to sustain the population at 6,000; and states like Montana, who according to Bob Ream, are aggressively killing more wolves.

But now the question has been brought up that perhaps states offering hunting and trapping seasons, based on the principle of “trophy” and “big game” hunting and trapping, might be causing even more game animals, like elk, moose and deer, to be killed. Is this possible?

It was nearly 4 years ago that I wrote a series, “To Catch a Wolf“. Much of the purpose of that series and other related articles, was to explain how difficult it is to kill a wolf; historically and globally. It’s one of the hardest things to do over a prolonged period of time and that’s why I chuckle at comments like Bob Ream’s when he describes the MFWP actions toward killing wolves as aggressive. There is NOTHING aggressive about trophy hunting wolves.

The process was long and mostly wrought with illegal actions and corruption, but eventually, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming got the infamous and controversial gray wolf removed from protections of the Endangered Species Act and trophy hunting seasons commenced; after all, wasn’t that the target goals of each of the states’ fish and game departments?

And so how’s that “aggressive” hunting and trapping going to reduce wolf populations?

If any of this isn’t complicated and wrought with emotion and irrational thinking enough already, in an email exchange I received today, the idea was presented that hunting a token number of wolves, in other words, managing them as a game species and classified as a trophy animal, might actually be only amounting to breeding a healthier, less stressful wolf that will eat more elk, deer and moose and become an even larger creature than it already is, further capable of killing more and bigger prey.

This idea is based in science, although those who don’t like the science disregard it. The science is the topic of wolf size. Most people are of the thought that a wolf’s size is determined by the species or subspecies the wolf comes from. I’m not going to pretend I have a full grasp of this science but will pass on that the essence of wolf size is determined mostly by food supply.

Consider then this premise to manage wolves as a big game species, which is what is being done in Montana and Idaho. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes managing game for surplus harvest, has worked marvelously well over the years, producing in places too many of certain game species. We certainly don’t want that for wolves as the proportion of wolves to prey/game species will soon get all out of whack. Our only hope then, is that the fish and game departments will fail as miserably managing wolves as they have elk, moose and mule/whitetail deer.

There is a reason why honest wildlife managers classify bona fide game animals as such and coyotes (and it should be also wolves) varmints to be shot and killed on site. It’s the only way to keep them at bay. This would be considered an aggressive move toward wolf control. Anything, short of an all out organized program to extirpate the wolf, would work just dandy and would never danger the future existence of this animal.
End

In the years that I have written about wolves, wolf “management” and the political nonsense that goes hand in hand with it, it certainly appears to me that there has become quite an effort among sportsmen to protect THEIR “trophy” wolf hunts. Is that in the best interest of actually regaining a vibrant elk, deer and moose population, that is supposed to be managed for surplus harvest, according to Idaho code?

In its most basic form, at least ask yourself how that “aggressive” trophy wolf hunting is effecting the elk, deer and moose herds? At the same time, what has become and continues to become of those elk tags? There just aren’t enough “trophy” wolf hunters to be effective and supporting the farce perpetuated by Idaho Fish and Game isn’t helping. It’s the same as buying a fifth of gin for a gin-soaked homeless fool.

As was relayed to me today, it seems the, “participants are in a race for the final bull elk or big buck in various units.” That’s the direction it seems we are headed.

Here’s a mini refresher course in promised wolf management. When the Final Environmental Impact Statement was approved, leading to the Final Rule on Wolf Reintroduction, the citizens of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region, where wolves were to be (re)introduced, were promised several things. First, we were promised that wolves would be “recovered,” a viable, self-sustaining population, when 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves existed in three separate wolf management zones for three consecutive years. Those numbers were achieved by 2003. What happened? Nothing but lawsuits and wolves didn’t finally get delisted until 2011 due to legislative action.

All promises made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were based on 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. They lied!

Second, citizens of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were promised that wolves would have no measurable impact on wild game herds. The only thing that might possibly be needed was a slight 10% or less reduction in cow elk tags should the occasion arise for the need to boost elk production in exceptional cases.

So, I ask. How many elk tags have been lost since those promises were made? As a matter of fact, all promises made were reneged on. There is no reason to believe or support anything promised us by government. Stop giving government money to run their con game. At this rate game animals will all be gone soon enough and no hunting opportunities will prevail….except possibly trophy wolf tags.

What will it be. As the old saying goes, “Pay me now or pay me later.”

Share

Can We Stop the “Social Justice” of Wildlife Management?

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor.  The Left hits a wall.  Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down.  But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally  blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

 

 

Share

Mass Creation of Red Wolf Automatons

This morning Jim Beers shared some of his thoughts in a brief email exchange. I’ll attempt to further encapsulate his pithy thoughts.

Beers was referencing an article that attempted to address the difficulties wildlife managers in Canada are having with creating a “delicate balancing act” between protecting the gray wolf and saving a rapidly dwindling woodland caribou herd. In the article, the author writes this: It’s not that one species is being given preference over another, said Environment and Parks regional resource manager Dave Hervieux, but controlling wolves is imperative to the survival of the caribou population.”

I took the liberty to highlight the portion of the above quote that Beers takes issue with when he says, “This quote from the article is an absolutely sterling example of how far our language is being corrupted by government and radical groups.  It is clear when racial crimes of religion-based terror occur that the media, the police, the government use all sorts of evasions and wordsmithing to mask the truth and create a lie, for instance Benghazi being “caused by a video” (that no one had seen).”

If I might further clarify what I believe he was saying, the statement is avoiding the truth. It is not true to say that one species is NOT given preference over the other. The truth is, one species IS being given preference and to deny this fact does no good at all – it masks the truth to create a lie.

He goes on to give other examples of how manipulating words creates a lie out of truth. Argument can be made as to whether this “manipulation” of words is deliberate brainwash and mind control or plain ignorance. It is a fact that deliberate word manipulation exists. Where the line forms separating the planned mind control from the echo chambers of media, education, police, government, etc. is sometimes difficult to recognize, but there is one. Most don’t want to see this reality, I assume because it hurts too much.

To build on this concise observation, one first must be willing to recognize and accept the fact that we are all subject to the control of mass media – media that takes on every size, shape and style, which includes government, education, music, news, movies, video games, police, etc..

It was in December of 2014 that members of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources released an informational document warning us that serious danger lurked in this world with the existence of propaganda, disguised as science, being used for political gain and the furtherance of private agendas – those agendas often fueled by corrupt money.

Committee Chairman at the time, Doc Hastings, said, “…potential bias about how ESA data and science are reviewed casts serious doubt on the credibility of these decisions, and provides more evidence that the ESA needs continued oversight and updating.”

Perhaps the question should be posed as to whether or not the scientific process is deliberately being bastardized for political and financial gain, or are we simply witnessing the results of many years of manipulating words of truth in order to create a lie – that which Jim Beers speaks of? Probably both.

How then, can we expect anything to change, or more specifically how can we return to a time when the real, honest, scientific process was in full dress mode? Never, is probably the right answer. Our infiltrated and corrupt education factories are pumping out mindless, brainwashed automatons that never question what they are told. They believe whatever is thrown at them, leaving their institutions of higher mind control and propagandizing, only to go about their business living the lies they were given by the corrupt purveyors of manipulated words that created the lies.

Here is but one example. Arkansas State University, to become compliant with the totalitarian act of political correctness, i.e. censorship and the destruction of the First Amendment, changed their “Indian” mascot to become the Red Wolves. So now thousands of students there flash the hand sign for the “red wolf,” which more closely resembles the symbol for Satanic worship more than a wolf.

However, what better target for the environmental radicals and animal perverts to prey on than easily mind-controlled students who think they are “red wolves,” to foist their “manipulated words into a lie.”

We see on this page of the ASU website, information about how students are going to become involved with the Endangered Wolf Center in St. Louis, Missouri and be subjected to propaganda (a movie) about saving the red wolf.

The first thing that needs to be said is that there is no longer any such animal as a “red wolf” – at least not that is defined through DNA. I suppose you can call anything any name you wish but that doesn’t change the fact that red wolves, as they once existed, we are told, cannot be found in our fields and streams nor can they be “reintroduced” to be protected and somehow, magically “revive” the red wolf population.

The Endangered Wolf Center extols the successes of red wolves in North Carolina. They can twist and manipulate words all they want but the experiment in North Carolina was an immense failure, in addition to living the lie that the semi-wild dogs the Federal Government was illegally dumping onto private land was not a red wolf at all. It was nothing more than a hybrid of coyote, domesticated dog and other “Heinz 57” admixtures. Federal biologists, eager to perpetuate and perpetrate their lies, simply called the mongrel a red wolf.

But here we see the environmental radicals and animal perverts preying on students who will be told probably every lie that ever existed when it comes to wolves, coyotes and endangered species.  If anyone knew better, they could see that this is a criminal act. In addition, people should be outraged to think that the thousands of dollars invested in a college education is being wasted on being subjected to some emotional clap-trap lies, sold as science.

If something isn’t done about this outrage, there is no hope that any university will produce people to go into the world and save the real scientific process. Instead we will continue to see apologetic word manipulations in order to mask truth and turn it into the lies that the environmentalists and animal perverts want.

 

Share

Life, Liberty and Happiness is Holding Hands with an Animal

It has always amazed me the amount of, not only ignorance (a case of failure to learn), but stupidity (it just cannot be corrected) that exists in the world today. One of the most revealing events in the revelation of ignorance and stupidity, all too often comes to us in the form of blind hypocrisy. Blind hypocrisy is the act of saying one thing, when it conveniently fits the present narrative, only moments later saying the opposite or disproving the original statement, and not having a clue as to what you have done. This clueless behavior is, most often, driven by willful ignorance and/or incurable stupidity.

When convenient, environmentalists and their associated animal perverts, in an attempt to extol their own self-proclaimed righteousness in everything to do with predators, heartily, and often from a position of mental instability, point a finger of blame at the hunter/trapper for what they believe to have been the “extirpation” of the gray wolf, grizzly bear, coyote, mountain lion, and any other animal that stands to pad their corrupt bank accounts all in the name of saving the world (wink, wink).

A brief lesson in history shows us that as settlers moved West, what existed for large predators at the time (not nearly so large as environmentalists want us to believe), often stood in the way of the settlers’ God-given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And so, with the help of governments, the value of meat and furs, trappers and hunters set out to, at least, limit the extensive terror these large predators wielded. I cannot say, nor is there historic evidence, that the intent was to extirpate or cause extinction of any of the large and small prey that existed in many places.

This need to control and limit the damages of animals, and in particular, large prey, was not relegated to the West. Historic documents show us of the constant conflict between man’s desire for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the existence of these animals in every part of the United States.

The need for all of this history and human behavior lecture is to make a point. I have said repeatedly, and did the same above, that when convenient, the environmentalists will point a finger of blame at the hunter/trapper for the serious reduction in large predators that took place nearly 200 years ago. When there appears to be – or probably more accurately stated – when pseudo-science, that is the science of convenience, is used to convince the American people of a wild animal “shortage,” that shortage is caused, in their small minds, by man and in particular, by hunters/trappers.

Let’s turn the table just for a moment. It is very common to read about serious problems that are presented due to too many of one or more wild animal species. Just recently, one tiny town in Downeast Maine, that is overrun with deer, had to create some sort of a means to rid the town of a reasonable number of deer in order to alleviate public safety concerns and property damage. The event is odd because overall Maine is void of an overabundant deer herd.

We are all subject to hearing about problems with coyotes. Coyotes present all kinds of problems from spreading disease, to killing pets and destroying game herds like deer, and livestock. We now witness abundant coyote populations living in our major cities. Presently, I live in a city of near 100,000 and within a metropolis of between 1 and 2 million people, depending on the time of year. People who live in my neighborhood, have been repeatedly warned that for several years a pack of coyotes has lived in the park next door and that those coyotes come into our area preying on dogs, cats and rabbits. The coyotes recently killed a dog when the owner broke the neighborhood rules and let their dog outside, without the restraint and control of a leash. This is but one example.

When the discussion comes up in all the “Fake News” media platforms about such problems, the image becomes one of emotional, ignorant and stupid people with head tossed back, back of hand on forehead, exclaiming, “What are we going to do?”

Brainwashing, propaganda, mind control and purposely-programmed education institution instruction,  results in severe ignorance and the inability to think and/or reason. In other words, people have become insane.

Today I am reading about the State of South Carolina that has a coyote problem. The article I have linked to states that deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year and still there is a problem. So the state implemented a contest in which they tagged 16 coyotes and released them throughout the state. Anyone killing one of these coyotes can bring the animal to an official station and win a prize of a life-time hunting license.

An official with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is quoted as saying, “The legislators are trying to respond to the question of, ‘What are you going to do about these coyotes?’ ” said S.C. DNR’s Jay Butfiloski. “But there are no quick fixes. You could say you want less coyotes but how are you going to get there? The only real viable way is to convince people who are doing outdoor activities to take more coyotes.”

SHUCKS! What are they going to do? Either they(?) want less coyotes or they don’t want less coyotes. If they really want less coyotes, the answer to the problem already exists. The state seems to think the solution to the problem is to convince hunters and trappers to kill more coyotes. Hint: tagging 16 coyotes and offering a free license, isn’t going to do the trick.

If it is true that South Carolina deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year, then the question should be asked, why do they kill that many coyotes. Surely it’s not for the value of the fur because coyotes’ pelts have very little value – at least most consistently the pelts are worthless. There are spikes when furs will jump up some but overall…worthless and very little incentive to expend the effort to kill them for profit.

I’m going to guess that hunters kill coyotes to help protect other game species, such as deer and turkey. I’m also going to guess that if deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year and there is still a problem, there must be in excess of 250,000 in the State of South Carolina. Hint: tagging 16 coyotes and offering prizes of free licenses isn’t going to do the trick.

It appears the State is looking to find out what kind of additional interest this tagged coyote contest will generate. I might suggest the DNR not hold their breath in great expectation.

If the State of South Carolina is serious about getting rid of coyotes, the state needs to make the effort to kill coyotes worth hunters’ while. Nearly 200 years ago, hunters and trappers were killing wolves and coyotes and the government paid them more for the effort then than is done today.

The short of all of this is that these environmentalist-trained officials like to blame hunters and trappers when species go extinct, but when there are so many of a species it presents problems that even environmentalists are willing to acknowledge, suddenly they become ignorant and stupid – “What are we going to do?”

But the problems of dealing with predators go deeper than willful ignorance and the actions that cause it. Even hunters, trappers and outdoor people are often clueless.

Frank Miniter, writing in the American Hunter for the NRA, says, “Coyotes, after all, are an awesome part of the ecosystem.” With all of the lop-sided troubles that coyotes cause, with disease, destruction of species, public safety, attacks on pets and children, how can anyone with a straight face, who knows anything about this animal, call it “an awesome part of the ecosystem?”

I understand the perceived need of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be as politically correct as possible, but how does such ridiculous political correctness benefit anyone? It doesn’t if and when you understand the true dynamics of predator behavior and the need for control to mitigate human conflict. People remain ignorant because they are taught that Nature balances itself. Even though that false claim has been disproved for several decades now, the convenience of perpetuating the lie remains alive in order to help fulfill the need to promote agendas and for environmental groups to make money.

Unfortunately for all of us, Frank Miniter’s article is nearly completely void of any links to the outdated claims he has made about coyotes. Calling coyotes awesome and making incomplete claims that coyotes, for the most part, have no impact on deer herds, and that it takes at least a 75% reduction in coyotes each year to have any impact, only provides disinformation to the animal rights perverts and environmentalists who want YOU, not them, to be just slightly inconvenienced by over-protected coyotes, killing your game animals, attacking your children and killing your livestock and pets.

What an AWESOME part of our ecosystems!

Blind ignorance refuses to allow anyone to see that after wolves and coyotes were seriously reduced in this country, for good reason, we got along just fine without this “awesome part of our ecosystem” for at least one century. Now, all of a sudden, we can’t live without them. We will all die without nasty, wild dogs.

Miniter’s information is outdated and useless.

A friend of mine, when commenting about South Carolina’s minuscule effort to reduce coyote populations and the American Hunter article about coyotes affecting deer herds, says, “Sometimes when you care you at least attempt to do something instead of spout outdated and useless stats and reasons why you do nothing.”

For a brief time a while ago, Maine attempted to limit coyote populations and targeted them in and around winter yarding areas. The effort showed signs of improvement, but that program soon died. At least they tried.

 

Share

Let the Whining About Maine’s Deer Harvest Report Commence

My morning routine now has mostly morphed into turning on the television and examining the line-up of Turner Classic Movies for the day. However, this morning, at some point in time, the television landed on the Fox “Whine” Network, for surely that is the most of what they do.

This all got me to thinking about my own whining. I do my share. Most readers are aware of that, but I try, sometimes not as successfully as I would like, to not only make suggestions to improve the things I might be whining about but also to educate readers and provide links for non-lazy readers to check things out for themselves. Most of the complaints I get are from readers who are lazy and hopelessly mired in years of propagandizing and brainwashing. But, let’s not get into that right now.

itrustmygovernmenthat

In Maine, the regular rifle deer hunting season has ended. Presently, muzzle-loader hunters are out further exhausting the bucks who have been in deep rut, putting stresses and strains on them that reduces their chances of winter survival. However, bills, evidently, need to be paid.

Regular readers know that it takes Maine months to offer up any indication as to the successes or failures of the deer hunting season. Here’s a chart that shows the date in which the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) reported on the season’s deer harvest over the past 10 years, in which the season, including Muzzle-Loader, is over by mid-December.

10-yearharvestreportdates

So, how long will Mainer’s wait this year? Whine, whine, whine. Actually, the whine really is mostly over, as sooner or later a man learns that wishing in one hand and …..well, never mind. It’s almost funny now and the interest becomes which year will hold the record for the longest amount of time it takes to count 20,000 deer. Rumors are circulating at the MDIFW office in Augusta, that bets are being taken as to whether I’ll drop dead BEFORE the next deer harvest report goes out.

Which brings me to something to bitch and whine about. Yesterday I was reading about how in Wisconsin, 2 DAYS, after the completion of the state’s annual 9-day rifle deer season, the state reported “unofficially” that 196,785 deer where killed. WOW! How’d they do that. Maybe this should be featured on a renewed television show, “That’s Incredible!”

A friend said to me:

wisconsinharvestcommentAnd, take a look at this! In Kansas now, as a volunteer sort of thing, hunters can register their deer, from the field, if they have a “Smart” phone. All the hunter needs is, “to submit two photographs — one close-up clearly showing the completed tag attached to the deer and a second showing the entire body of the deer with the head still attached.” Of course “Photoshopping” will never play a role in poaching.

And, I’ve got to put this in here somewhere so:

DON’T GO LOOK!

This would never work in Maine! Most portions of Maine, that is, those portions where deer hunting actually takes place, haven’t any cell phone or Internet Service. As a matter of fact, not only have some of the tagging stations never heard of the Internet, the MDIFW, have yet to get rid of the floppy discs and are still using Microsoft 3.1, with dial-up service. Back before electricity, and when the Pony Express was being used, reports got out to the people quicker. It would be faster to wait for Mad Jack and his mule Number 7 to bring word, than to wait on finding enough fingers and toes to count 20,000 deer on.

madjack

I overheard a group of hunters standing outside Berry’s Store in The Forks saying, over a six-pack of Bud, that for twenty bucks (no pun intended) and free beer, they could have Maine’s deer harvest numbers counted inside of one week. I did notice one guy wink his eye and heard him whisper to his buddy, “We gotta drag this out, man! It’s free *%&#!^* beer.”

We know that last year’s bear harvest data wasn’t made available on the MDIFW’s website until after this year’s bear season had started. We also know that deer hunting in Maine is the Big Kahuna of all big game hunting seasons, so MDIFW busts their proverbial, you know what, to make sure the harvest report gets out before commencement of the Fourth of July weekend.

I would make a suggestion about how MDIFW could more quickly count 20,000, but if they haven’t figured it out yet they never will. And besides, if I push them too hard, they might arrange things so that half the number of deer will be harvested and they can get the report out in half the time. We might then get the report, on or before, Memorial Day.

But if you are one of those that holds hands with government and sings Kumbaya, I suggest finding one of the hats shown above. It comes with Government authorized party favors – like things you can blow on.

cheesewithwhine

Share

Question 3: If What We Are Told is True

universalbackgroundcheckIt’s a simple concept…to me anyway, but I struggle to understand how and why others cannot see what is so easily seen. We are told many things. Most people just believe and follow along, making no effort to even ask simple questions.

Maine faces a referendum on this November’s ballot – Question 3. It is presented by the fascist Michael Bloomberg, and his billions of dollars he got by lying, cheating and stealing. Why then should everyone not suspect his law proposal isn’t rooted in lying, cheating and stealing? Carefully crafted (and why hasn’t anyone questioned how the Maine attorney general allowed wording on a ballot initiative that is completely misleading?) the proposed law is presented in the form of a “universal background check.” What is a universal background check? Has it been defined, other than its use throughout media? We distrust media…they say…and yet we blindly listen and follow. We are sold the idea that a universal background check would reduce crime and gun violence. We know it won’t but…well, I shouldn’t say that, because, according to the same media, the majority of the people believe it will. Which brings me to my point.

Whether truth or fiction, we are told that the majority of Mainers (somewhere around 61%) think background checks are a good thing. (Note: I’ve never seen any data or evidence of what people think a background check is, or how any polling question was worded.) Nationwide, this same majority of opinion, is sold to us repeatedly by the press. We already have background checks but liars have successfully convinced enough people that there exists “loopholes” that magically allow the sale of guns to mass murderers.

If any of this was true, then it would seem honest to present a proposed law that would close any, so-called, loopholes that might allow the sale of a gun to someone attempting to skirt the mountain of laws on the books already that are supposed to stop criminal purchase and ownership of guns. Such is not the case. The proposed law is poorly crafted, or done so intentionally, confusing, and goes far beyond any notion of closing loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why?

Common sense should lend people to question the real purpose of the proposed new law, but obviously it doesn’t to the majority of people. If Bloomberg and his little minions honestly have a concern about finding better and effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals, they sure have a dishonest approach to it, where their proposals are only geared to the destruction of lawfully owned guns by law-abiding citizens. Doesn’t that or shouldn’t that raise some question in your mind?

Laws do not work and never have worked for criminals. Every law ever written was designed to stop the criminal but it doesn’t work. Insanely, this society insists that crafting laws, which are nothing other than destroyers of our rights and freedoms, will stop a criminal.

I contend that the Second Amendment should be upheld in the form that it was written…period. Lawful citizens are lawful because they have some semblance of a moral compass. Usually such people need only some guidance and leadership by example. Criminals are criminals…period. Can we ever learn this concept?

Share

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

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

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

The U.S. Has at Least 3.5 Million Gun Laws!

GunControlI hope I got your attention with that headline, and better yet, I hope none of you have cut and run assuming I’m an idiot…although I’ll concede that many of you cut and run quite some time ago.

The Second Amendment was part of the original Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” From time immemorial, the intent of the Second Amendment has always been debated. Was this right granted to the “militia” or to the individual U.S. citizen…or someone else? Some seem to think that question was finally answered, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller. The late SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Majority Opinion and wrote: “It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms…” However, while many in this country was celebrating this statement by Scalia, they chose to ignore, “Of course the right was not unlimited…” In reading Scalia’s opinion, he bases his claim that the Second Amendment can and should have limitations on a presumption that the Founding Fathers, when ratifying the Bill of Rights, knew that in subsequent generations, obviously unforeseen in 1791 upon ratification, certain “things” would call for changes or limitations to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. My question to Justice Scalia then would have been, if the Founding Fathers were smart enough, with enough foresight to imagine the need for “reasonable limitations” of all the rights, then why didn’t the Founding Fathers write that in the Bill of Rights?

Even though there is little in the Second Amendment text that would cause people to conclude that it has room for “limitations” into the future, how does one responsibly argue against, “shall not be infringed” and Scalia’s claim that the Fathers knew?

I’m not intending to get sidetracked, but this is important information to have and to research and study, if you are really seeking Truth.

If one is to fairly examine rights, as they were written in the Bill of Rights, it is important to take note of the efforts, since 1791, to limit the exercise of each of the original 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For lack of time and space, I will not venture into all the rights, except to use the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech right, as a comparison.

If we look at a timeline of the history of freedom of speech, in which certain laws were enacted or attempted to be enacted and failed, we see that about the only limitations in free speech we still experience today deal with obscenity. Obviously that is pretty much overlooked as such “indecent” material is readily available at just about anywhere in the United States. Even consider that at one time the U.S. banned the desecration of the American Flag, only later to have that prohibition overturned. Even though many of us Americans stand up to protect our Bill of Rights, too many of us are guilty of cherry-picking when and where to apply such rights. Perhaps the current debate in progress over whether a professional football player should be punished because he refused to stand during a pregame National Anthem, in protest…peaceably.

In total, there are perhaps a small handful of laws that limit freedom of speech, even though Justice Scalia believed that future generations would find the need for “reasonable limitations” on all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Turning to the Second Amendment, I headlined this piece as there being 3.5 million limitations to the Second Amendment. How absurd is that? Well, I really don’t know how absurd that number is but I can assure you the number of laws, all aimed at limiting our Second Amendment, is substantially larger than a small handful.

On June 18, 1981, President Ronald Reagan, after having supposedly been shot by John Hinckley, Jr. said, “There are, today, more than 20,000 gun-control laws in effect–federal, state and local–in the United States.”

The Media and all political factions, political action organizations, groups, non-profits, etc. are guilty of taking anything they find in writing and becoming an echo chamber to perpetuate it as fact. It is readily assumed that the choice to state 20,000 gun control laws existed, wasn’t and probably still isn’t the truth. But what is? Is it more than 20,000 or less than 20,000?

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, while testifying before Congress in January of 2013, told Congress, “The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.” So, was Reagan referring to all gun laws, i.e. federal, state and local? Did LaPierre have knowledge of how many federal laws limit the Second Amendment? Later, a spokesperson for the NRA said LaPierre misspoke, but would never give a source or correct the number.

What are we to think? The Bangor Daily News reports that, “the ATF guide to state laws… is 507 pages long and includes only laws relevant to dealers.” Maybe there are 3.5 million laws limiting a person from freely exercising their guaranteed Second Amendment Right.

We can safely conclude no less that 2 things – There are a lot of gun laws and very few of them are or can be enforced.

If we return to the First Amendment limitations for just a moment, and examine the limitations, even those that were either overturned or expired, can we make a reasonable conclusion as to the reason for the limitations? I think so. Isn’t it about public safety or protecting the public interest, even though some, if not all, laws are political in nature?

What about the Second Amendment? Can there be any other reason to want to limit the Second Amendment than for public safety? Forget the politics for a moment. Everything in life is full of political insanity. The Second Amendment is under attack most vehemently today because of political insanity. Some of that insanity is hidden behind calls for necessary and reasonable limitations on gun ownership because of public safety. After all, it is with every occurrence of a shooting that some in the public, as they are programmed to do, call for more limitations, more laws, more restrictions, all to protect the public. But to protect them from what? It seems the political posturing is of more harm to the public than an armed, unrestricted citizenry would be.

If reasonable people, of which there are few, could conclude that the majority, if not every single gun control law, was proposed and/or enacted, based upon public safety, then the question that remains is quite simple. How has the 100, 1,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 3.5 million Second Amendment limitation laws worked out in protecting the public and ensuring public safety? I thought so.

It’s next to impossible to attempt to provide a rational list of data that shows gun crime as it relates to increased gun restrictions, mostly because the criteria changes or is changed to rig the data. A reasonable person, only needing to look around, should be able to see that with 3.5 million gun laws on the books, those laws can’t be doing much for public safety. Maybe it’s time to try something else.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Incrementalism of Disarmament

gunandscalesofjusticeThere is much ado about Michael Bloomberg’s efforts in Maine to limit Second Amendment rights through the ballot box. He proposes a law, that will be voted on by the Maine voters in November, to implement “Universal Background Checks.” Most people don’t bother ever reading the actual law and, if at all, will read what the ballot says, which is incomplete at best and a bold-face lie at its root.

Few will also take the time to fully vet and comprehend who “Everytown for Gun Safety” is and what their real purpose is in getting a disarmament measure passed in the State of Maine.

Therefore, any and all efforts to pass or defeat a disarmament bill, seem as though they will be relegated to talking points and superficial discussions about left and right paradigms and who’s side holds truth.

The Washington Post published an opinion piece last November about Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby group, and how two possible ballot initiatives, Maine and Nevada, would seriously impede Second Amendment rights. The article is a good read and spells out in pretty good detail how certain aspects of this proposed law would effect many more things than whether or not background checks are expanded upon the populace. (Note: If you follow the link to the Washington Post site, where the article is archived, you will have to give them your email address to keep reading. Sorry! They need money too I guess.)

The Post’s article focuses only on the issue of how Bloomberg’s bill would effect Second Amendment rights, including self defense and firearms safety training. This is all very true stuff, as near as I can determine upon examination of the text of the proposed ballot initiative for Maine. But there is another related issue with this proposal that I have not read or heard about from anybody else. Please consider.

David Trahan, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), posted a link to the Washington Post opinion piece on the Facebook page for SAM. Trahan commented: “The law [Bloomberg’s ballot initiative] is not about expanding background checks. It’s about managing how we use guns.”

Well, yes. That’s right and it’s much more than that. But let’s get to the other issue I’m hinting at.

To do this, let’s set the “Wayback Machine” to November 2, 2004 when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (not your local humane society) anchored an effort in placing on the November ballot a proposal to, “ban…using traps, bait, and dogs to hunt bears.” That initiative was defeated. For a considerable period of time after the election, all that I ever heard about this effort was the HSUS tried to take too much at one time. It seemed that the general consensus, at least what I was hearing, was that if HSUS had gone after just trapping of bears, they would have won. Of course that would have been followed by banning dogs and eventually all hunting of bears…..and then?

Knowing that all animal rights and environmental groups are well-funded, tightly organized and with more patience than perhaps your average bear (oooh, sorry about the pun), it seemed plausible to me that the next time – and there would be a next time – HSUS wouldn’t go for the jugular. Instead, they would bleed their prey to death.

From information that I had access to at the time, I really believed, when it was first announced that HSUS was taking up the cross for another go at ending bear hunting, they would only go after trapping…this time. I was wrong, and I really don’t know what happened in which HSUS thought they had a chance at winning the whole ball of wax this time. I think this was their mistake…a serious one.

There is a certain amount of what is often referred to as, incrementalism, that goes on when one individual or group attempts to force others to take up their, often progressive, lifestyles. It’s easy to see the incrementalism that has taken place since the passage of the Second Amendment. It’s one of the most attacked rights, under the Bill of Rights. A “right to keep and bear arms” now is replete with more restrictions and limitations than a straitjacket.

If we look closer at the fascist Bloomberg’s proposed law, for those willing to read the law and see the straitjacket restrictions and limitations it contains, rational thinking would conclude that Bloomberg is going to far. I’m sure there are those who support “universal background checks,” whatever that is, who may be angry or fearful that, because Bloomberg has been stupid and greedy, this law will never pass. There are also opponents who are probably glad that Bloomberg, like HSUS before them, is being stupid and seeking too many limits to gun ownership.

So, is Bloomberg that stupid and greedy? I don’t think so. I know he got where he is today because he’s at least smart enough to side with, and not against, the ruling establishment. He is one of the connected insiders and, as such, he’s not alone in his quest in Maine to rid that state of guns. As Maine goes, so goes the nation? Hmmm.

Therefore, it is my contention, that Bloomberg – that is those with the legal brains and training in dealing with the public, psychology and propagandizing (Tavistock trained) – intentionally wrote the proposed bill for a greater purpose than, “managing how we use guns.”

It is Bloomberg’s agenda (whose agenda is it really?) to rid the entire U.S. of private gun ownership. It’s the one big deterrent that is prohibiting full implementation of the New World Order/One World Government. Americans like to call this “globalization.” Bloomberg has patience, time and lots and lots of money.

The ballot initiative, as written, is a test model. He is using it to not only see how far he can go right now, but how far he can go next time…and there will be a next time. If he is lucky enough (from his perspective) to get this “universal background check” passed, it will be clear sailing for him from that point forward. We can expect a nationwide initiative at “universal background checks.” If not this time, next time, armed with the fodder the Maine public is providing.

As media outlets, along with the leaders of the sporting industry, i.e. Sportman’s Alliance of Maine, have a debate about Bloomberg’s Question 3, responses to this debate will set the stage for the next round of raping of our rights. The responses will tell Michael Bloomberg just how much Maine people will tolerate, how much more of the Second Amendment rights they are willing to give up for him and his fascists.

I have not read anywhere, in any of this debate, why the Second Amendment has to provide a background check in order to exercise a guaranteed right. What other right in the Bill of Rights requires people to undergo a background check in order to exercise that right? I thought so. We know from court cases that forcing citizens to get a license or pay a fee, etc. to exercise a right, is unconstitutional – or at least can be supported by previous case laws.

The Second Amendment is being systematically and incrementally destroyed. As long as we the people are ready, willing and able to participate in setting the limitations to our own rights, what is there in our future as a free society? None. The message to Bloomberg, and all others, should be that not only are we not interested in giving up more of our rights, but we working very hard to get rid of the limitations stood before us now.

I’d like to see the debate turn away from providing the fodder for Bloomberg and his “Everytown” fascists, and get back to a discussion about why the Second Amendment is the only Right that is not a right.

But, Don’t Go Look!

Share