Featured Article

Bloomberg’s “Everytown” Gun Grabbers More Connected Than You Might Know

April 26, 2016 by Tom Leave a Comment

*Author’s Note* – Different from my typical writing style, I included very limited links to information that I have provided. I have given you ample subject matter and titles and it is really up to you to do the leg work – if you care. Grab a subject and use your computer browser, library, book supplier, etc. to locate information about that subject. I will give you a hint though. It is important to read what the controlled Mainstream Media is telling us (remember Michael Bloomberg owns and controls a good chunk of the media), but you need to get away from that as any kind of reliable source. You do the work and even discover those things that really make you uncomfortable. The information provided below is but a drop in the bucket of reality. I hope I have provided enough information and the right information to motivate you to do something for yourself.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine recently shared an article written by “Bigshooterist.” The intent of the article is to prepare people with bits of information about Michael Bloomberg and his lackeys roving about the country spending money, telling lies and wielding power in order to disarm Americans. One place Bloomberg is targeting is the State of Maine. Ever ask yourself why would Bloomberg, or any of his rich friends, have an interest in Maine? Maybe you should. The connections are there.

While it is true that Michael Bloomberg has the power and money to make the lives of anyone subject to his fascist ways, few have any clue as to the extended power that Bloomberg holds – i.e. the “principalities, powers, and worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places.” (Ephesian 6:12) To have any hope of fully understanding the man behind the effort to disarm America, we first must learn about this man, his background, his connections and who he chooses to associate with and carry out his goals. Note – there is no way this can be completely done in anything other than a book. My intention is to expose a little of what is readily available to anyone who wants to take a look.

Before I get into too much information about Michael Bloomberg, let me spend some time to share a bit about the people who Bloomberg has chosen as his “Advisory Board” for Everytown for Gun Safety. These will be brief and will not include everyone.

Most people think “Everytown,” which was once Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is still the same entity. While there are some mayors on the “Advisory Board,” there are far more members with different histories and backgrounds that should give pause to anyone who would consider supporting this group – and not just because they present themselves as being opposed to guns and gun violence. Consider the bigger picture.

Bloomberg has selected 28 people, some of whom are not even American citizens, to join him in the fight to disarm America and force his vile and perverted lifestyle onto those who wish it not. There are two things important to understand about Michael Bloomberg, which assists in forming an understanding of the man. While it is not my appointed duty to sit in judgement over Michael Bloomberg and any spiritual relationship he may have with God, I do know what the Bible says about a quote Bloomberg once made when discussing what would happen to him when he died: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”

We know from his statement that he questions the existence of God. We also know that, like with everything in his life, he believes he can buy his way into heaven.

The second important thing to remember about Bloomberg is that while mayor of New York City, and since, he believes it is his right to ban everything he can in order to control people. Just look at his record.

Consider these two issue when you look at his organization, Everytown for Gun Safety.

Let’s begin with the following Advisory Board members:

1. Stephen Barton – Barton is a Brit and composer of music for mostly video games. Claims to be and has been presented by Media to be a “survivor” of the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting. Some have claimed his actions to be staged and his entire representation of himself to the event, a farce – another attempt at scaring people into submission. Barton is supposedly a Zionist with former connections with Michael Bloomberg, also labeled as an “arch-Zionist.”

2. David Lyle Boren – President of the University of Oklahoma and former Oklahoma governor. Chaired President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board: “The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), with its component Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), is an independent element within the Executive Office of the President.

The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board exists exclusively to assist the President by providing the President with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the nation’s intelligence needs, and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future. The Board has access to all information needed to perform its functions and has direct access to the President. [emphasis added]

The Intelligence Oversight Board oversees the Intelligence Community’s compliance with the Constitution and all applicable laws, Executive Orders, and Presidential Directives. It complements and supplements, rather than duplicates the oversight roles of the Director of National Intelligence, Department and Agency Inspectors General and General Counsels, and the Congressional Oversight Committees.

For more than five decades the PIAB has acted as a nonpartisan body, offering the President objective, expert advice on the conduct of U.S. intelligence.” [This, of course, is a fraud, doing nothing as described.]

Prior to Barton leaving the PIAB, the Snowden “Wikileaks” happened. It is said that Obama controlled all the leaks along with the firing of nearly every member of PIAB – probably threatening them with their lives if they spoke out. Most believe “Wikileaks” to be the action of one man “leaking” stolen, classified information. Nothing of this size happens that way. It was and is a planned event by the dark and evil governmental administrators and power brokers.

Barton is an alumnus of Princeton University and member of Skull and Bones.

3. Eli Broad – Jewish and founder of SunAmerica. Sold SunAmerica to American International Group (AIG) who have on more than one occasion been linked to establishing insurance connections providing for the transfer of billions of dollars in insurance payoffs after the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center. AIG had offices in those buildings. The only way this could have been pulled off was to have known in advance of the blowing up of the Twin Towers.

Broad, along with Jim Walton, both Wal-mart heirs, funneled money through a political action committee to promote the election of candidates who supported Common Core.

Broad gave a quarter million dollars to fight against recall efforts of two Colorado State politicians who supported gun control measures.

4. Warren Buffet – Promised to “give away” most of his wealth through the Gates Foundation – an organization that actively promotes Common Core and works in many avenues to fulfill the goals of the Club of Rome’s human population reduction by at least 5 billion. He openly endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

Buffet, like Bloomberg, epitomize the corrupt monsters of Wall Street. Buffet, in particular, has “advised” President Obama, as well as other presidents in financial and economic matters and rakes in billions of dollars with his schemes. Some believe this sort of behavior is something people like Buffet and Bloomberg undertake on their own. Not true. They are puppets of the very wealthy and very powerful Ruling Establishment. Buffet and Bloomberg make gobs of money off taxpaying citizens because they are allowed to. There are many examples of such wealth – Donald Trump is one of them as well, but like we see continuously, nobody wants to know about this stuff. It’s uncomfortable.

Buffet, like Bloomberg, is a member of the Bilderbergs, who meet annually to devise ways of building their own wealth while destroying others and financially raping the Middle Class, giving enough to the useless and poor to keep up their voting base. As an example of Bilderberg power, when Qaddafi, in Libya was murdered (if not by the Bilderbergs, then their associate partners) the Bilderberg’s first arrangement was the setting up of their banks in order to control oil.

Buffet and Bloomberg are “members” of the not-so-secret Kappa Beta Phi of Wall Street.

Buffet has given in access of $3 billion to promote abortions of unborn babies.

5. David Chipman – Former agent of the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

6. Michael B. Coleman – Jesuit trained, former mayor of Columbus, Ohio. Freemason

7. “Sir” Geoffrey Arama Henry – Australian, Knight of British Empire (the same as Michael Bloomberg).

8. Irwin M. Jacobs – Jewish, co-founder of Qualcomm.

9. Marc Haydel Morial – Former mayor New Orleans, Roman Catholic, Jesuit trained at Georgetown University, member, exclusively black, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, whose symbol is the mythical Sphinx of Giza, known in English as “The Terrifying One.” Morial served as a board member of the Louisiana Chapter of the Civil Liberties Union (imagine someone serving in that capacity once, and now, working to destroy the liberties of others through destruction of the Second Amendment.)

10. Michael Mullin – Former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, under Obama. Openly stated that gays and lesbians serving in the armed services, “would be the right thing to do.” Joined General Motors Board of Directors after the Government bailout. Michael Bloomberg had selected Michael Mullin as a running mate for president in 2016. Bloomberg did not run.

11. Michael Nutter – Former mayor of Philadelphia – turned the city into a “Sanctuary City.”

12. Annise Parker – Openly gay woman and former mayor of Houston, Texas. Former president of the Houston Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Political Caucus. Parker’s “wife” is Kathy Hubbard.

The remaining members of the Advisory Board for Bloomberg’s gun fascists, claim to be former or current mayors of American cities or supposed “victims” of mass killings, such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tuscon and other media-labeled random shootings. Ample evidence is provided which should cause intelligent people to question the accuracy and authenticity of many of these high-profile, mass killings. History shows us that immediately following these events, real or put up, guys like Bloomberg and his group of fascist lackeys scream for disarmament of the citizenry.

As I pointed out above, the, “principalities, powers, and worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places,” are such that they have the power and control, along with the evil desire, through selfish wants, to stage mass shootings, assassinations, terror attacks, etc. for the perpetuation of scaring the population in order to drive them to further give up their rights and give up their guns.

There is no secrecy in the truth that a fearful populace is a subjective populace.

Some believe it is enough to learn to recognize the tactics of people like Michael Bloomberg and his 28-member Board of Advisers. What they don’t have understanding in is that Bloomberg does not act alone and in actuality, from a very earthly perspective, his power is almost limitless. It is not just he who calls the shots and manipulates and uses his Board of Advisers. He is but a small man within a very big, very powerful, extremely well organized and a wealthy, well-funded Ruling Establishment.

If readers were to take the time to examine fully the Global Power Structure, they would, perhaps with mouth agape, discover that people like Michael Bloomberg, while very wealthy and very powerful in our eyes, are way down the list of those wielding actual power. That doesn’t, however, exclude him, along with others like Warren Buffet listed above, from being members and participants in many of the open and secret societies of the world that make up the Global Power Structure. If men of such power are “way down the list” of the Global Power Structure, then where do you and I fall?

Most know that Michael Bloomberg is Wall Street. He is extremely wealthy, making much of his money the way most wealthy men do – manipulation of Wall Street and having a say, and being allowed to have a say, in banking and government regulation. The ignorance of the people who don’t understand comes through in events such as “Occupy Wall Street.” Here people are protesting the power and control of Wall Street while being funded to carry out their protests by Wall Street.

If people took the time to examine what really goes on with banking and investment, they certainly would not be standing in line rooting for Donald Trump for president – not that any of the other candidates are any different.

Bloomberg is a Zionist, a Jew, who surrounds himself with others just like him and/or those he can manipulate for selfish gain and to carry out his orders from the higher-ups. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (openly) and his company Bloomberg L.P. is a member of the President’s Circle of the Council on Foreign Relations. Few have any understanding of the CFR and even fewer know that the CFR is actually controlled by a secret membership.

The CFR controls the United States Government as well as the Media. All media giants are members of the CFR. The European counterpart to the CFR is the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Bloomberg, along with Buffet and Bill Gates, belong to an open club (made known to us by the press) of billionaires “concerned about world population.” They pump millions of dollars of their own money, and yours, in order to hide behind the billionaire’s club, while at the same time murdering millions of people worldwide through vaccination programs, so-called “healthcare” programs and several other programs that we are brainwashed into believing are saving the world and the people in it.

The former N.Y. City mayor is a Knight of Malta, a product of the Vatican, designed to infiltrate the world in many ways, such as becoming mayors of cities, in order to seek control over the people. This of course goes hand in hand with the distraction we are allowed to see and read in the Media, called “Everytown for Gun Safety.”

Most people don’t understand that the Vatican, many parts of it, in the context in which I am referring, isn’t necessarily your next door neighbor who faithfully attends Mass. Some might ask why Michael Bloomberg, a proclaimed Jew (Zionist), is part of a Vatican establishment. Bloomberg is a Zionist, and Zionists and the Vatican are pretty much one in the same.

Michael Bloomberg is shown listed as a member of Dr. John Coleman’s Committee of 300. There are several well-known and not-so-well-known world leaders on that list. If interested in the role of the Committee of 300, many books and online sites offer information.

Some have said that Bloomberg is a master of Freemasonry. (Let anyone with knowledge understand.) Perhaps he is. But if you don’t have understanding of the upper levels (secret) memberships of Freemasonry, my pointing out that Bloomberg and many of those of his Advisory Board, along with most of the powerful financial and political brokers, are Freemasons, it means nothing.

I could spend several more pages writing in detail about Bloomberg and his membership, participation and connections to all the movers and shakers of the world. The important thing to take away here is that it is the connected power of this man that ultimately makes him and his actions dangerous.

I encourage all readers to take the time to study and learn. It’s in your best interest. Once you begin to read and study, it takes very little time to discover that all of these people are connected and part of the same open society groups, financial institutions, banks, Wall Street, etc. and many secret organizations that you refuse to learn about because you are convinced (brainwashed) to believe it is all “conspiracy theories.”

Michael Bloomberg, and his Board of Advisers, are dangerous people – dangerous in the aspect of what it is they actually intend to do. It makes a terrific target to focus on – guns and gun control – because so many people are now convinced guns are evil and the cause of violence. With that misguided fear, they are putty in the hands of Everytown for Gun Safety. It is important that someone and everyone connected to Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc. etc. becomes successful in disarming Americans. They can’t as easily carry out their plans for mass population reduction, through disease, wars, terrorism, vaccines, chemicals, heavy metals spraying and abortion, all part of the large plan of globalization, i.e. New World Order/One World Government, until the citizenry has been disarmed.

It will happen. When? I can’t say, but unless something drastic happens, and things continue as they are today, with the progressives, having infiltrated every aspect of our lives, Americans will become like many have before them – helpless, easily manipulated slaves – who in time will have no understanding of what freedom is.

You can do your part by learning the truth. Yes, it’s good and important to fight against the fascists like Bloomberg and his ilk, but that battle is an effort in futility unless you know and understand the Global Power Structure and how it works and the role that is planned out for you.

I believe it was William Cooper who once said that it really doesn’t matter whether or not you want to believe what these powers and principalities are saying, because they believe it. Because they believe it, it is of utmost importance to you.

It isn’t until you gain a truthful knowledge of what Ephesians 6:12 actually means, can you understand what, aside from the Useful Idiots and True Believers, the powers, principalities, princess of darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness are capable of doing. To carry out their missions in this earthly life, these people will stage mass murders, school shootings, terror attacks, etc. in order to keep you and I scared so they can kill us and or make us slaves. That is a difficult concept to try to grab hold of, but it is one that you must if you actually have any hope of a better life than what others have planned for you.

Ephesians 6:12 – 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

¹²For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places.

Psalm 2:2,3 – The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Filed Under: Featured Article, Guns/Gun Rights, Maine Hunting News Tagged With: control, everytown for gun safety, evil, fraud, government, gun control, gun rights, guns, michael bloomberg, power, second amendment, secret societies, wall street

I Thought Wolf Delisting Law Prohibited Judicial Review

March 24, 2016 by Tom 3 Comments

In March of 2011, I told readers that the Baucus/Tester rider bill on a federal budget continuing resolution was a fraud, corrupt, designed to exhort money and destroy urban America, deceptive, dishonest, political regurgitation, crooked, destructive, inequitable, preferential, and unconstitutional. I think I got all the bases covered. In short, I did not like it very much. I do recall on more than occasion saying that passage of this bill would come back and bite us all on the ass. The chickens have come home to roost.

First, a little history. Efforts by a small group of concerned citizens believing in the need for sensible wolf management and control, spent a great deal of time to get someone in Congress to work toward getting the Endangered Species Act amended, that would yield real results aimed at limiting the ability of environmental groups to bring frivolous lawsuits and managing wildlife through the court system.

Good and positive progress was made in Washington until another group of so-called sportsmen, decided their politics were more important than productive and equitable wildlife management. Having access to lots of money, they were successful in destroying the years of effort many of us had put in and in it’s place was born the rider bill to a budget continuing resolution brought by Senators Baucus and Tester.

*Note* – More information on the rider bill and the political shenanigans can be found here and here.

The “rider,” attached to the continuing resolution, reads as follows:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010.

*Note* – I added the links in this rider bill text for truth seekers interested in research. I also emboldened parts of the text.

On April 2, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published in the Federal Register the plan to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This was challenged in the Courts and wolf delisting was repealed and wolves were placed back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. Subsequent attempts to delist, were, once again, met with lawsuits, until, out of frustration with trying to deal with a serious issue through normal channels, we ended up with passage of the rider bill shown above.

But did we then and do we now understand what that bill actually says? It is typical politician and lawyer mumbo-jumbo B.S., designed to deceive and leave wide open the door for further litigation and interpretation. (Defined as a way to make gobs more money.)

Dr. Charles Kay, wildlife ecology, Utah State University had said from the time of passage of the Baucus/Tester bill, that the wording of the bill is such that it ends the prohibition of litigation at the end of the mandated, 5-year monitoring period, which is found in 74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq. Upon hearing that environmental groups intended to sue the USFWS when the 5-year monitoring ended, Kay said, ““Congress said that the 2009 delisting regulations were the law of the land and that there was to be no more litigation regarding the 2009 regulations, which include a provision that the Feds monitor state management for 5 years before fully removing wolves from federal control……..Congress did not say that final removal of federal oversight could not be litigated.”

What do you think the text means?

First we read that the Secretary of Interior must reissue the 2009 Final Rule to delist wolves. Simple enough. The text clearly states that the Final Rule has precedence or authority over any “statutes or regulations” that have been issued in this case. In other words, all previous court rulings from lawsuits brought after the initial filing of the 2009 Final Rule, are void.

Now comes the confusing words – I believe added by design (political bantering and corrupt back-scratching). Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review … Assuming that “including this section” means Sec. 1713 (shown above) then it must be interpreted to mean that the passage of the continuing resolution, including Sec. 1713, cannot be challenged in a court of law.

I read the rest to mean that the “reissuance” of the 2009 Final Rule cannot be challenged in a court of law. What isn’t clear is whether or not the reissuance of the 2009 Final Rule can ever be challenged in a court of law. I see nothing in the above text that even prohibits lawsuits after the reissuance. All I read is that the act of reissuing a Final Rule cannot be challenged.

Perhaps a closer look at the actual Final Rule will shed more light. The Endangered Species Act requires that from the time of issuance of a Final Rule to remove a species from ESA protection, a period of, no less than, 5 years must be set aside for the USFWS to monitor the species and the actions of a state’s management plans and results. Inside that 5-year monitoring, the USFWS has authority to intervene and place a species back under federal protection if they so deem appropriate. In other words, the Feds have authority over the wolf management plan. After the 5-years, then what. Is the Final Rule null and void? If after the 5 years and the USFWS sees no further need to monitor the wolf, then isn’t it probable that from then into the future should the USFWS want to put wolves back under protection of the Endangered Species Act, they would have to begin the process all over again? Which would include no restrictions on lawsuits.

One might assume that under “normal” administration of the ESA and a final rule, that anyone would be free to petition and ultimately file a lawsuit intended to force the USFWS to continue monitoring of a species, should such a suit provide evidence to show a species may be in peril under existing circumstances. Because in this case, it is not normal, do environmentalist groups have freedom to challenge any part of the “reissuance” of the 2009 Final Rule?

Sec. 1713 of the Continuing Resolution says that the “reissuance” cannot be challenged. Now that the Final Rule has been reissued and the 5-year monitoring is near complete, can wolf delisting in Montana and Idaho be challenged?

I would assume that if it can, then any part of the delisting of wolves in Montana, Idaho or anywhere else in the United States can be challenged in a court of law. That being the case, then we should expect that with the past history of wolf litigation, along with the mostly bought-and-paid-for judges, wolves will systematically be declared endangered and will be federally protected anywhere the environmentalists would like for them to be, along with the help of the Courts.

Therefore, I return to my original anger when certain “sportsmen” groups used their own political agendas to destroy an effort in Congress that would have prevented such lawsuit nonsense. Instead, we are right back to square one where management of wolves is fully in the hands of the Courts.

In an email just the other day, I shared with a few recipients to remind them that the USFWS has never won a wolf lawsuit brought by environmentalists. As a matter of fact, I don’t think they have even challenged a court ruling on wolves.

Partisan politics, rooted in power hungry greed, destroys everything. That is why Washington is a dysfunctional cesspool of corruption and criminal activity.

Filed Under: Endangered Species, Endangered Species Act, Featured Article, Idaho Hunting News, Legislative News, Montana Hunting News, National/World, Predators Tagged With: continuing resolution, corruption, environmentalism, final rule, idaho, lawsuits, montana, politics, rider bill, wolves

BLINDED: The Two-Sided Believers

March 14, 2016 by Tom 8 Comments

There are few thinkers. There are billions of believers. The believers are all insane, and don’t know it. Believers see the thinkers as insane. Maybe they are. It doesn’t much matter. Believers have been programmed to act and react and thus, part of that planning is to force people to believe there are “two sides to every issue.” Why not three or four?

We are in the throes of what believers see as an election cycle – a legitimate event of political salesmanship . A thinker might see it for what it is – a farce, a dog and pony show, a continuance of the false paradigm of left vs. right. Ah, yes! Two sides. There’s two sides to every equation, therefore left and right. Ignore reality. Don’t examine truth. Forget history. Create your own…provided it perpetuates one side or the other. It is all we know. We are, after all, insane…and don’t know it.

I want to call myself a thinker because I see the world around me as a foreign place, a place I continue to withdraw from, an abyss in which all that is in it is unattractive, things I can’t and won’t relate to. I’ve “come away” and the farther I get, the happier I am, which makes me appear insane to a True Believer.

So, I got to thinking today, after reading an article in the American Thinker, called “Infantile Egoism and Environmental Science.” Everything presented and discussed in the article was from the perspective of only two sides – the revelation of Two-Sided Believers.

It’s unimportant, to me anyway, to examine the very limited two-sided aspects of what is presented in the article. What is important, to me anyway, is to do what I can to get people to stop being believers and start to become thinkers. I don’t mean some kind of intellectual bimbo who thinks up fancy words only to present the same worn out lies. I want people to stop rationalizing everything they do based on what somebody else said or did. Yeah, I know. That’s difficult to do, but I did say I wanted people to start to become thinkers. It won’t happen overnight.

It’s a huge obstacle for people to first recognize their imprisonment. Only then can they start to make a break away from the two-party (two-sided) political sham. It has become so bad that with any issue, there is only left or right, and that any solutions can only be left or right. People are either left or right believers. Some attempt to escape the maximum security prison and call themselves Independent, but they are not, at least not most of them. Just listen to an “Independent” talk and soon you could discover (once you are a thinker) that the basis of their so-called independence is their choosing some of the lies on the left and some of the lies on the right. Thus, because they pick some of both lies, they are independent believers, not thinkers.

In the article linked-to above, the author believes that Infantile Egoism may exist from birth, in which children grow up believing that bad things happen only around themselves, that they are the cause of bad things – like harming the environment; everyone harms the environment. Thus, people are bad.

The author chooses to see this event as something psychological, eventually contributing to the leftist’s support of Environmentalism, i.e. man is destroying everything. Why is this a genetic event? Why isn’t it a man-caused event – anthropocentric egoism? Why isn’t this a planned event by something or someone other than genetic happenstance? And why can’t it be seen? Remarkable things are caused to happen to minds, even before birth.

In the article, much time is spent discussing how these infantile egoists, blame man for such things as the loss of bees, global warming, and cancer linked to high-voltage power lines. The discussions are always two-sided. We are told that the egoists create the panic, i.e. that the loss of bees will kill us all, that man-caused warming will kill us all, that man-caused power lines will kill us all – man destroys everything. Then, later on, supposedly, man discovers there’s no evidence to prove any of these claimed theories of destruction. Science came to the rescue. Or did it? Where’s another side? The non-genetic pattern is established – create a problem, create panic, rush in with a cure…always presented and/or perceived as a leftist problem, leftist panic, leftist cure or a rightist problem, rightist panic, rightist cure. Almost always neither problem, panic or cure is real. But that doesn’t stop a believer. March on!

Why is it that we are so often told of a coming disaster, only later to be told there was a mistake? Take for example the issue of bees as was related in the above article. You might remember that we have been told that bees were disappearing and that it was all man’s fault. Think of the millions of dollars doled out for this event. Recently, bees are everywhere, much like the monarch butterfly, etc. “Science” is now telling us that historic evidence (the believer’s) shows us that bees, birds, butterflies and climate have, since their beginning of time, fluctuated and what we are seeing is natural. If you are a rightist believer, such words are received in perfect harmony. A leftist believer calls them lies. Are you willing to accept all this as either your truth or their truth? Perhaps you wouldn’t be if you were a thinker instead of a believer.

While we are mired in one of the two sides of believing, we may have no idea of not only what is really going on around us, but no idea of what took place before us. That makes all of us prime candidates for believership – 100% True Believers. We are told from birth that we are either left-thinking or right-thinking. Do we dispute that?

You should know that the Club of Rome has been endowed with certain functions in life. One of them is population destruction. While believers discuss what we have been spoon-fed; that bees are missing, etc. and then accept the explanation that missing bees was really a “natural” thing, why isn’t there another explanation? Some may choose to believe that the earth is warming and the consequences are devastating. Others may choose the other side, that it’s all “natural.” Government may even step in and tell us “there is new science.” Do believers then believe that government is right? Do believers accept that “science” is now correct? Most will. They never question outside of their prison. They love their comfortable servitude.

What if the bees are disappearing? What if the butterflies have all died off? What if the earth is warming? What if power lines overhead and cell phones cause cancer? Maybe the new-science explanation is just another way to get you and I to stop thinking, so that “they” can continue to kill us, slowly but surely. Don’t think, just believe. It’s easier that way. Maybe, all of these events are happening and they are man-caused but not in the way we have been programmed. While insisting on arguing whose prison is better, the guard is destroying our food, filling our atmosphere with toxins, controlling the weather, causing the planet to warm, causing droughts, causing everything. But to explain it, some are born as infantile egoists. We must believe, because believing establishes the highway to hell. An infantile egoist, which I doubt even exists except as a man-made, false, implementation of mind control, automatically becomes a leftist?

We aren’t born left or right. We are made left and right. Believers are trapped. Some are smarter than others and, even unknowingly, play the game well. They have become useful idiots for the True Believers.

Have you ever thought that it is you and I who are blamed for the so-called, man-caused events of destruction and it is always you and I who will bear the brunt of the costs (more than just money) to correct these terrible created events? Have you ever thought that it is always government who steps in to “find a cure?” Have you ever thought that maybe it’s government that caused the bees to vanish, butterflies to die, the planet to warm, and to fill the world with cancer?

HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT? No, no no! Not think that you have thought. HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT on your own?

It’s always a two-sided discussion with only a left or right solution. You are either a leftist believer or a rightist believer, therefore the only cause and solution must be either one or the other. We believe.

Have you ever thought about how it is that the Bible and all recorded history can’t take us back further than around 4,000 BC, and yet we accept what is written in the article referenced that the Cambrian Period began 570,000,000 years ago and lasted 65,000,000. Because of a man-made system of dating the earth, we believe…no thoughts.

Most have never read or heard of ancient recorders of history like Demosthenes, Siculus, Dionysius, Herodotus, Eusebius, etc. If we had, we might question the things we have been taught. Instead we choose to be believers.

Man decided what was a “safe” level of cholesterol. Nothing scientific or proven, just what that level should be. We believe. We don’t think. How many billions of dollars stand to be made when another man, with power and authority, decides a safe cholesterol should be 5 or 10 points lower. Is it really about health or about making money, or something else? Think! Maybe it’s about killing you and me in order to reduce the population down to a mere 5 million? It’s easier not to think. There are two sides only. Be a believer and pick one side. Stick to it, regardless of the realities around you. It’s easier that way.

I am the lunatic. You are the sane one. I think, therefore I am bonkers. Do as you are told and when you don’t like it, look for a left or right solution. That’s your freedom. Accept it and be quiet.

Filed Under: Commentary/Opinion, Energy/Natural Resources, Environment, Featured Article, history, National/World, Science Tagged With: believers, brain manipulation, brainwashing, infantile egoism, leftism, mind control, rightism, thinkers

Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

March 10, 2016 by Tom Leave a Comment

The State of Maine is in the middle of gathering information from licensed hunters and fishermen, and in some cases the general public, that we are told they want in order to better make decisions on how to proceed with and create new wildlife management plans. Science used to be and still is the best way.

Two surveys were recently completed by Responsive Management in cooperation with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). One is the 2016 Maine Big Game Survey that collects responses from licensed hunters, both resident and non resident, large land owners and the general public, about hunting in general and specifically about land access and big game species of bear, moose, deer and turkeys.

The other survey, completed by the same entities, collects responses from only licensed fishermen, both resident and non resident. There will also be public meetings held across parts of the state to listen to the public about big game management and fisheries management. Check the MDIFW website for times and places.

Surveys and polls are basically useless instruments. To what severity the uselessness is achieved is dependent upon the methodology of the poll or survey, i.e. who is surveyed, the demographics, who funded the survey, and how the questions are asked and the words used to form the questions. I have taken some time to examine the survey results for both the hunting and fishing reports. As far as surveys go, these two are not terribly bad at manipulating questions and/or concluding answers that are misleading. But…..

Before I get into a couple of specifics of these two surveys, let me give readers a chance to understand how questions and answers are manipulated to achieve desired results. I’m not suggesting that anything in these surveys was done deliberately. I am suggesting that through indoctrination over the years, survey and poll administrators learn how to present questions from trained experts who do know how to fudge data. There is lots of money to made from doing that. Even though in this case the administrators may not have deliberately devised questions to mislead, human nature, along with the truth of polls and surveys, will render faulty results.

For those who have read my writings, and in particular read my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?“, we know that during the process that led up to the (re)introduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Congress granted $200,000 to a group who wanted to introduce wolves, to answer specific questions Congress had about the wolf. (The questions are immaterial to this article)

Because this group wanted wolves badly, they set out to prove to Congress, truth be damned, that wolves were a good thing. This is where a faintly recognized term surfaced – the Delphi 15. This came about because this Congressional-appointed group went out and contracted (not necessarily for money) 15 “scientist” to answer some questions that the group would use to convince Congress. The 15 scientists were kept secret and none of them knew that there were any others involved, thus, they did not know their names.

I discovered through research that this group, ordained by Congress, quietly and as secretly as they could, opted to use what is called the Delphi Technique to achieve the answers they were looking for that would fit their wolf narrative. 15 scientists, unknowingly conned via the Delphi Technique, and there we get the title, The Delphi 15.

To better explain about the Delphi Technique, below is posted what I wrote in my “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” book.

The Delphi Technique

Take notice that Dr. Bergerud, in his email states that: “I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills.” Bingo! That is what the Delphi technique is¹. Some of us may not know much of anything about the Delphi Technique but I’m willing to wager most of us have been Guinea pigs to it.

The best way to define what the Delphi Technique is in simple terms is to say that it is a method in which those administering a brain storming session, or in this case a “questionnaire,” manipulate the questions and the procedures in order to get the end result that is desired. Let me give two classic examples of this.

First would be a poll. Every day in our lives, perhaps more so in the news, we are constantly being barraged by the results of polling. Should we believe the results of the polls we are given? Absolutely not, especially when we are not given the questions and the structure and context to which those questions were presented.

Most of us have taken poll questions. Have you ever been given one in which you really could not find the “correct” answer? That is the honest answer you would give if you had that opportunity. That becomes the result of the Delphi Technique.

The other, perhaps not quite as obvious and a part of everybody’s life, is a brain storming session. These take on several names, such as, symposium, seminar, public forum, town hall, etc. I’ve been involved in many but for most of them I had no idea what was really going on. I certainly do now and avoid them like the plague.

Those administering the event, are usually led by one or two people. It is those people who “know what they are doing.” They want to achieve a specific result and therefore must manipulate the setting and events to their advantage – much in the same way as a magician.

Let’s say that you attend a public forum to gather input from the public on ways to make your community a “better place.” Who gets to decide what a “better place” is? What most people don’t know is those administering the forum have already decided what will make your community a “better place.” Their job is to make you think you were part of the decision making process. All they have to do is present some kind of evidence that shows the majority of people in your community decided what was a “better place” and to make it happen.

Often we find ourselves being placed into “breakout sessions.” These come complete with a table and/or chairs in a circle, an easel board and a facilitator. It’s the trained facilitator’s job to force the hand to achieve a desired result.

During this brain storming breakout session, you might be asked to offer ideas on what would make your community a better place. Take notice the next time you find yourself in this setting, that the facilitator will prompt or edge the group with “ideas” of his or her own. These “ideas” are predetermined. Seldom are there ever results during the forum. We might be told that what the consensus was will be shared. It can easily be said, because each facilitator, by instruction, added to the list the same “idea”, making it a majority “consensus.”

Imagine what the results would be if the administrator and the facilitators only offered up questions, like in a poll, that forced participants to provide answers they didn’t really want to.

Dr. Bergerud indicated in his statement, the tactics used by Delphi administrators. He said that nobody in the group of 15 knew who the others were. This is very important. They could not, before, during or after, consult with each other. After all, they might discover they had been duped.

In the Volume I Summary of “Wolves for Yellowstone: A Report for the United States Congress,” the report willingly exposed some of the schemes of the Delphi Technique when they wrote that they had withheld important information from the 15 members, seeking their opinions of the subject. Does the “Best Available Science” operate on opinions obtained from scientists who are denied information and data? Does this “science” have “different meaning for different people?”

In essence that is the Delphi Technique that was used on the “Delphi 15” of those commissioned by the United States Congress to get answers to 4 questions. Do we have the exact questions given to the 15 members? Do we have the exact answers provided by the 15 experts? Is this what is described by the United States Government as “Best Available Science?”

<end>

Within the two surveys used in Maine, sometimes questions are asked while seeking an answer from more than two choices. The wording of the choices can be crafted in such a way as to mislead, or misdirect the survey taker. In addition, the responses sought after may not cover the full spectrum of what the person being survey might answer if simply asked to tell their opinion of something. It is also relevant to report that when people read such reports, they cherry pick, or are misled, and see only what they want to see or what the administrators of the survey want them to see.

Let me give a couple of examples from the hunting survey. In offering summaries and explanations of methodology, the surveyors wrote: “Another question gauged respondents’ comfort level regarding wildlife around their homes. Using a continuum from the most comfortable (“I enjoy seeing and having wildlife around my home or on my property”) to the least comfortable (“I generally regard wildlife around my home or on my property as dangerous”), a large majority of each group (70% of the general population and 80% each of landowners and hunters) chose the highest comfort level, and nearly all the rest chose the second most comfortable level.”

Many of you may ask what’s wrong with that. It’s easy to explain really. Surveyors are seeking what they call “comfort level” but they don’t directly define what that means. Instead, they offer us an example of both ends of what they call a “continuum.” Note that at the “least comfortable” the choice offered is that they “generally regard wildlife…as dangerous.” Dangerous? Where did dangerous come in? Can’t property owners not care whether they see wildlife even if they don’t think it’s dangerous? Think of the possibilities of how questions and choices of responses can certainly misrepresent truth.

Another example in the hunting survey has to do with gathering input about the respondents on their knowledge of the animal specie bear, moose, deer and turkeys. Exactly how the survey takers were asked the question I don’t know, but the results show that an overwhelming majority of people answered that they knew “a great deal or a moderate amount” about the four species. This, of course, is simple self-perception. If the survey question does not contain qualifiers, like do you have a degree in wildlife biology, surely of what value does such a question hold? Is this used to convince the uneducated public and unsuspecting wildlife managers that because the respondents know so much about the species, their answers have scientific value? (only if convenient?)

In the fishing survey what struck me most about this survey was this, written in the Executive Summary: “The study entailed a telephone survey of resident and nonresident licensed anglers in Maine, age 16 years or older. ” The survey is designed ONLY for licensed fishermen – resident and non resident. While the hunting survey involved the general population, the fishing survey does not. While perhaps not completely necessary, from what I gather, the surveyors didn’t go out of their way to explain why the general public was not also survey about fishing and their support or non support of the sport. Isn’t this important to wildlife managers? They tell us repeatedly that as far as hunting goes, they must make their decisions based on social toleration. Therefore, the survey provides no examples of why a member of the general public might choose not to fish. Isn’t it just as important to understand the reasons to not fish as well as what kind of fishing one prefers.

Let me further explain. I was reading George Smith’s article this morning about how this fishing survey proves that anglers don’t care if they catch big fish or a lot of fish. This may or may not be true, but do we really know that? Smith also writes: “Is it possible that if the fishing or hunting sucks for a long, long time folks forget what they are doing. Habit without product? The new breed of conservationist?”

This statement also holds a certain amount of truth. There’s also another byproduct of Maine fishing and tainted surveys that can be misleading and/or not giving the whole picture, as we see above. Smith writes in his article that Maine fishermen, 77%, support catch and release rules and yet the survey says that 81% of fishermen did not choose to fish in designated catch and release waters. Choosing what fits our narrative?

To fully understand the results of the fishing survey, you would have to fully understand the demographics. While demographics are in the survey, the average person cannot distinguish why people mostly fish with a spinning rod and reel and yet support catch and release rules. Is it that they prefer everyone else practice catch and release so they have more fish to catch and keep? Or, as it appears to me, whoever presented the question asked it in such a way as to create confusion and/or mislead. According to what Smith wrote, he said that 77% of fishermen “support” catch and release rules. Does that mean they WANT more catch and release rules or we just being told to think that catch and release is preferred over catch and keep?

The answer is, we don’t know, nor does this survey tell us. Therefore, if we bear in mind that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, managers, sportsmen, pundits and my grandmother can pull out of these surveys anything they want that fits their narrative. I suppose MDIFW managers will do the same thing, which leaves us with the question, why did we spend all this time and money on these useless surveys?

There will be public meetings where citizens can go and say their piece. There will also be an Online survey where anyone interested can offer comments. Please bear in mind what I hope I have taught you here.

When it’s all said and done, MDIFW will spend the greatest part of their time copying and pasting all the previous game management plans and adding a little change here and a little change there. So why can’t we spend the money and time on worthwhile events?

Filed Under: Featured Article, Game Management, Maine Hunting News Tagged With: delphi technique, fishing surveys, hunting surveys, maine, surveys, wildlife

Maine: An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

February 8, 2016 by Tom Leave a Comment

When I first heard about this proposal from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I read about it at George Smith’s blog at the Bangor Daily News. After reading his article and his words about the proposal, I began crafting a response. Then I realized much of what was written in the Bangor Daily News, didn’t make a whole lot of sense. I held the article because it put the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine in a bad light unfairly. I decided I would wait until I received a copy of the actual text of the bill proposal. *Note* – The proposal, shown below, is titled as a “Working Draft” so please bear that in mind. Also, a thank you to David Trahan for providing a copy of the proposal.

I will paste the “Working Draft” below, followed by any comments I may have about the text of the bill.

WORKING DRAFT

February 1, 2016

An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA § 10111, is enacted to read:

10111.Contingency wildlife management provisions. In the event an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces or alters wildlife management methods or management options available to the department, the department shall implement the following management measures in relation to any wildlife or fish species significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved measure. For purposes of this section, “animal” means a wildlife or fish species that is significantly affected directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.

1.Nuisance animal expenditures. The department may not expend any revenues on the control of animals causing damage pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8 or any other nuisance animal control activities in excess of the amount spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure adjusted every year thereafter for inflation.

2. Relocation. The department must restrict the relocation of any animal causing damage or a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.

3. Sterilization program. The department may not establish or implement a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.

4. Waste application. The department may not dispose of any animal in a manner that would constitute waste under section 11224 and may not dispose of any animal killed by the department on state-owned land.

5. Landowner depredation program. The department shall develop by rule a landowner depredation program that includes but is not limited to the following.

A. A limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner or the landowner’s agent but may not exceed the limit allowed by licensed hunters.

B. A requirement that a landowner must donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established pursuant to paragraph A, to the Hunters for the Hungry program under section 10108, subsection 8. If the animal is not suitable for donation under that program, the department shall assist landowner in the proper disposal of the animal but may not authorize the landowner to retain the animal or any part of the animal beyond the limit established in paragraph A.

The department shall report to the joint standing committee on matters relating to fish and wildlife by January 5 annually on the landowner depredation program including, but not limited to, the number of animals killed pursuant to this subsection.

Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are major substantive as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.

6. Impact analysis. Within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department shall conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters. The department’s analysis must include, but is not limited to, a biological and ecological impact assessment, the economic impact to the department and how the department will need to adjust its management practices to maintain a healthy wildlife population.

SUMMARY

This bill establishes contingent wildlife management provisions that become effective when an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces wildlife management methods available to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The provisions of this bill only apply to the animals that are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure. Those provisions include the following.

It places a cap on the revenue the department may expend to control nuisance animals to the level spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure.
It prohibits the department from relocating a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.
It prohibits the department from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an affected animal.
It provides that the department may not dispose of animal in a manner that would constitute waste under existing statute and prohibits the department from disposing of an animal killed by the department on state-owned land.
It requires the department to develop a landowner depredation program that sets a limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner and requires a landowner to donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established by the department to the Hunters for the Hungry program.
It provides that within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department must conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters.
It requires the department to report on the landowner depredation program by January 5 annually to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

My Comments:

10111 – About the only comment I have about this section is that it involves the use of undefined words. It is asking that any approved ballot measure that “reduces or alters” wildlife management options….and, “significantly affected.” While it is difficult to define such use of terms, history should have taught us that these vague terms become a determination made by lawyers and judges – not always in the best interest of everyone or anyone.

Nuisance Animal Expenditures: I have been told that much of the reason for this alternative wildlife management proposal is aimed at limiting wildlife management lawsuits by animal rights groups and environmentalists. I have also been told that it would be another year before any constitutional amendment would be forthcoming – an amendment deemed to help protect Maine citizen’s right/privilege to hunt, fish and trap. One would have to wonder then, whether or not this proposed legislation might actually be more effective that any of the proposed constitutional amendments I have seen in the past few years. More in a bit.

The key to this “Nuisance Animal Expenditures” can be found in the reference to Maine law 10053, subsection 8 – “The coordination of animal damage control functions throughout the State, including supplemental assistance for the control of coyotes and other nuisance wildlife that exceeds normal funding and staffing levels within the department;”

We have to wonder if this section is here in response to last year’s bear referendum, where concern from sportsmen, as well as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), about the possibility that should the anti hunting referendum pass, uncontrolled bear populations would create a nuisance and thus a cost to the MDIFW. Not being an expert on legalese, I do have to wonder if this can come back and haunt sportsmen and MDIFW.

Relocation: Makes sense that any animals that need to be captured and released only be released in areas where there aren’t too many of the same species already. (Maybe this should be amendment to read that any nuisance animals, big or small, be released in the back yards of those promoting anti-hunting legislation.)

Sterilization Program: All sterilization programs are not cost effective and don’t work. I have no problem with placing this restriction until such time that science devises better methods – if ever. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that game animals are a resource. Employing any sterilization methods over providing game harvest, should never be approved.

Waste Application: I see this as a real “in-your-face” to the Humane Society of the United States, and other totalitarian animal rights/environmentalists groups in order to suppress the hypocrisy often found with these groups. These organizations are always quick to point out any wanton waste of a wildlife species, while they routinely kill millions, or approve of such, of unwanted cats and dogs each year. This action may not put the responsibility directly back on environmentalist, referendum seekers, it would, it seems to me, require petitioners to provide contingency plans on what to do with the wildlife that needs disposing of due to uncontrolled populations.

Landowner Depredation Program: This is mostly self-explanatory. However, I would like to point out here that the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) should tread lightly here in that they do not anger and/or alienate private land owners. If wildlife is creating a nuisance to landowners, i.e. crop damage, etc. we must protect that landowners right to protect his property. If the writing of this depredation program limits a landowner’s ability to protect his property, then a can of worms will be opened – the result being a losing proposition for everyone.

A landowner should have his protected right, under the guidance of state officials, to deal with nuisance wildlife that is a threat to his/her property. Placing a limit as to how many animals that landowner can keep and/or forcing the landowner to give the deer to Hunters for the Hungary (I think this should be worded in a way as to not make Hunters for the Hungry the exclusive feeding program) may not be in the best interest of all in the long term. Sportsmen need the generosity of the landowner to access his land. Pissing them off is counterproductive.

Impact Analysis: – Not a bad idea except MDIFW will complain that they don’t have any money or resources to do this. Readers should probably need to understand as well that any “impact analysis” can be, and most often is, political in nature. In the recent bear hunting referendum, many sportsmen oohed and aahed over MDIFW’s effort to educate the public about the repercussions should this bear hunting referendum pass. Would sportsmen be so quick to pat MDIFW on the back if they had supported this referendum?

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of faith in government of any kind. I understand why SAM would be calling for such an impact statement, and I certainly do not oppose real scientific management and assessment of wildlife issues. The problem is we don’t very often get that anymore.

We live in a time when a psychopathic society, in love with animals, and educated by psychopaths who aren’t interested in the real scientific process. They are interested in romance biology and other avenues of utter nonsense.

Maine lucked out this time because the MDIFW happened to come down on the side of sportsmen. What will happen next time? What happens when the next governing body of MDIFW believes nature will balance itself out and self-regulate?

It appears that in another year SAM and their associates will endeavor to pass a constitutional amendment – one they think will protect their right to hunt, fish and trap, which will, consequently, limit or eliminate the countless lawsuits Maine faces to destroy hunting, trapping and fishing. Those promoting the amendment shouldn’t get their hopes too high that the state would pass a real effective amendment.

Most amendments that I have read about and followed in my research, end up with a copy-and-paste version of somebody’s idea of a good constitutional amendment. What they end up with is a document that suggests to the states’ fish and wildlife department that they will do everything in their power to provide “opportunities” for people to hunt, fish and trap. As I pointed out the other day, it’s extremely easy to provide an opportunity to hunt. One permit, once a year to hunt a moose is an opportunity.

Historically what happens is fish and wildlife departments take up arms (figuratively of course) against any constitutional amendment that mandates their department to manage game for surplus harvest. This effort provides the maximum game populations so everyone can harvest game, provided of course each department does their job. This is opposed by fish and game departments because they don’t want the mandate pressing down on them.

Is this what Maine sportsmen and Maine voters want? Amendments without that mandate are ineffective.

If this proposal of SAM’s passes, it may actually have more teeth than a constitutional amendment. Why? Because most sportsmen think that an amendment will protect their right to hunt, trap and fish and that it will limit or do away with the lawsuits and ballot initiatives Maine sees on a regular basis. While this is important, they shouldn’t put their faith and trust in government and government agencies. Sportsmen should not just settle for a protection of opportunities. They should demand that the managers build populations for surplus harvest. Otherwise, stop paying their salaries and retirement benefits.

Filed Under: Featured Article, Legislative News, Maine Hunting News Tagged With: bill proposal, maine, sportsman’s alliance of maine

Second Amendment Brainwashing

January 26, 2016 by Tom 4 Comments

The following statements have been credited to Adolf Hitler in the book Mein Kampf:

“The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses. But the masses are slow-moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them….”

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

“The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.”

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. …”

“To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. …”

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and pioneer of public relations and propaganda usage, and who was also part of the propaganda force used by Wellington House (later Tavistock) to influence public opinion pertaining to World War I, said:

“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.”

“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.”

What better way to “address(ed) always and exclusively the masses” than beginning with pre-school and ending up at college? Eventually, the education, through repeated propaganda, will begin in the womb. Americans should know, but probably do not, that our education factories were taken over many decades ago; the result of which is what we see today in our social and moral decline – or do you see such declines? For those that don’t know about the takeover, let me list, briefly, a few of the organizations and think tanks that decide what you and I were taught, what our children are being taught and our children’s children: Aspen Institute, Brookings Institute, Institute for Policy Studies, MIT, National Training Laboratories, Rand Research, Stanford Research Institute, Wharton School, Tavistock, and many more.

Guy Debord, in “Comments on the Society of the Spectacle” tells us: “Spectacular government, which now possesses all the means necessary to falsify the whole of production and perception, is the absolute master of memories just as it is the unfettered master of plans which will shape the most distant future. It reigns unchecked; it executes its summary judgments.”

The short of it is, you and I have NOTHING to say about how our kids are educated and what crap is being drummed into their heads. This should have become obvious long ago when Lyndon B. Johnson, as part of his propaganda tool called, War on Poverty, pushed and passed the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Designed for failure (Failure in this case pertains to the fact that the program failed to accomplish what Americans were told it would accomplish.) it set the stage for the next step toward the manipulation of education (propaganda) for the masses – always the masses.

In 1979 president Jimmy Carter created a stand-alone Department of Education – a better way for centralized government to wield power and brainwash the masses – Spectacular Government.

Hiding behind propaganda to, “establish standards of excellence for all children,” President Clinton and Al Gore created the “Goals 2000” education program. After propaganda was used to convince the people that our education system was “failing,” (all designed to “fail” and be replaced with a new program.) along came George W. Bush who was going to, once and for all, end the “failure of our schools” and thus was born, “No Child Left Behind.” Consequently, many children got left behind (again propaganda efforts to convince Americans our schools were failing) and with the election of Barack Obama, government got brave enough, the result of years of brainwashing and effective propaganda, to implement an education program with communism built right in – Common Core.

Common Core is a global initiative designed as a one-size-fits-all propaganda and brainwashing tool to be used and administered by a centralized, one-world government or global department of education. If successful, by the standards of the global fascists pushing the program, Americans and their children will be learning what a centralized, fascist government intends for them to learn.

And yet, we eagerly deny that there is anything wrong with our education system and with it refuse to accept that we have all been brainwashed to believe and accept certain propaganda that influences heavily the way we think and act, i.e. trust Government.

It’s odd, that should anybody consider these possibilities, the way the brainwashing and propagandizing works, the disbelief is remarkably ridged, forcing people to deny that such sinister acts exist, claiming they would recognize it if they saw it. Thus the difficulty in convincing brainwashed people they are brainwashed. What does it take?

Note: If you are not, in the slightest, convinced of any of this brainwashing mechanisms, it is quite pointless to continue reading.

Recently I wrote, “Second Amendment is Considered ‘Infringable’ by Most.” I presented examples that showed how the Courts went out of their way to protect other rights, such as First and Fifth Amendments, and failed to show the same perspective and respect for the Second Amendment and its protection.

Heavily entrenched into debates about the Second Amendment, is the nonsense about “reasonable restrictions.” Sometimes discussed, even by people who self-proclaim their avid and unwavering support of the Second Amendment, is that there should be restrictions on what kinds of “arms” should be limited by fascism, infringing on the Second Amendment.

I have often heard the argument from those opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment was designed and intended for “the times in which it was written” – whatever exactly that means. The twisted reasoning here is that at the time the Bill of Rights was crafted, there was a need that some people should be armed but only armed with the weapons of that day – i.e. a musket. It might be assumed that the common man didn’t own a cannon because he couldn’t afford one. But, if he could afford it, and wanted it, he had the right to keep and bear ARMS. Today, the same financial restrictions apply, however, one does not have a right to own them even if he could afford to.

As arguments go, to claim that the Second Amendment was intended for the events and circumstances of 1791, then the Second Amendment should be intended for the events and circumstances of 2016. Instead, the call is to get rid of the right, because the people are so heavily brainwashed they can’t recognize their hypocrisy and ignorance. It’s difficult to blame the people. To some degree, they just don’t know what they are doing and saying – by design. Come out of the whore, the Bible tells us.

Because we refuse to review and study real history, the failure becomes exacerbated through the devising of such ridiculous conclusions that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to only the ownership of a rifle or pistol. History and the words of those founders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, show us the reasoning behind and the necessity of a Second Amendment. The short of it was that the Second Amendment was, “necessary to the security of a free State,” and to protect us from the tyrannies of a centralized government.

If you have belief in the U.S. Constitution, then you should recognize that the writers did NOT give themselves all the power and control the U.S. Government of today has. The Founders clearly stated that the necessity of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizenry from the government – not necessarily the government of other countries but our very own U.S. Government. Thus, with the advent of sinister applications of propaganda and the subsequent usurpation of education by those intent on propagandizing the masses for sinister reasons, we see a complete change in the need to keep and bear arms as protection from our government, to a calling upon government for protection. Do we not recognize or understand this change? Evidently not. There is little reason to think we no longer need protection from our own government, and yet, many, especially gun haters, sincerely are convinced the United States Government would not harm its citizenry, therefore there should no longer be a need for a Second Amendment.

I might ask the same questions as Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Often discussed with Second Amendment issues is the infringement upon the kinds of “arms” this government allows its subjects to possess. Embedded fear, through propaganda and education/brainwashing, creates unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of what a citizen might do with a cannon but because of misled trustworthiness, considers it proper in the hands of government. Historians probably remember there was considerable debate about whether this country would have a standing army in time of peace. Noah Webster told us that before a “standing army” can rule, the citizenry must be disarmed. It was fresh in the minds of colonialists the power of tyrannical governments. Many were opposed to the government having an army. And why? They understood the dangers of standing armies and ill-thinking politicians and power hungry perverts.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides for Congress to “raise and support Armies,” but were restricted to the funding of such armies to not more than two years.

With the power of Congress to raise and support Armies, the argument then can be made that in order for a free American, of self-determination, to limit the threat of government tyranny over himself, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be limited by the government. The only reason a government would place those limitations on its people is to ensure that the people can never have anything near the right to keep and bear arms as the government does, under the guise of national defense. Therefore, the intent of the Second Amendment becomes ineffectual. Our belief that our self-possessed armament is truly a deterrent to tyranny is dishonest. Slavery is but one act of Congress or that of a tyrant, away.

If the Second Amendment, determined to be a right of the people by the U.S. Supreme Court, and, as the right claims, the purpose of the Second Amendment is “necessary to the security of a free state,” to protect the people from the tyrannies of too powerful governments, why then do we allow the government to limit our Second Amendment rights?

Do you really trust government that much? I certainly have a lot more trust in my neighbor than I do this, or any other, centralized government.

With disinformation and misinformation, combined with outright lies, embedded into American’s minds, not only do we fear that any fellow citizen should have the right to own automatic weapons, grenades and rocket launchers, our ignorance and lack of ability to think and reason, places all of us at a greater risk of that fear of a despotic government and slavery. We just cannot and will not see that.

Consider the many who buy into the concept that a well-armed military, including a large, modern army with high-tech weapons and mass-killing weapons is a deterrent to foreign invasions, or of war, by tyrannical governments. And yet, these same would not even consider that same rhetoric to apply to the need and purpose for a citizenry to be armed well enough to at least put the fear of God into a group of corrupt politicians to remind them it might not be so easy to place Americans into governmental servitude.

I doubt that few can see or understand my thoughts and reasoning. I never expected that they would. Instead of people asking the right questions, like why do we allow government and hate-filled groups to infringe upon the Second Amendment, directly destroying the only real protection we have against tyrannical government and preserving all other rights, they allow their fear, bred from brainwashing, to warp their thinking that arms in the hands of a lawful citizenry is more dangerous than in the hands of a government – a government known to have murdered and killed millions of people during the span of its history, little, if any of it, justified.

We, as a society, blind to the propaganda and products of the brainwashing, trust government over our neighbors. It’s just unbelievable! Even though recent polling, another propaganda tool, shows that less than 10% of Americans trust their government and Congress, we still are of the mindset that unlimited arms in the hands of corrupt government is better placed than in the hands of a people – a people once believing that they were the government and keeping and bearing arms guaranteed their protection from government.

Hasn’t the brainwashing worked marvelously?

Filed Under: Featured Article, Guns/Gun Rights, history, National/World, Rights Tagged With: brainwashing, edward bernays, fascism, history, hitler, propaganda, second amendment, tyranny

Second Amendment is Considered “Infringable” by Most

January 22, 2016 by Tom 3 Comments

People should ask why it is that the Second Amendment is fair game for infringement – “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

I have often said that if an honest person is interested in protecting constitutional rights, more than likely they will find themselves among strange company. A right is a right….isn’t it?

The Second Amendment states: “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.” And yet, this nation has spent billions of dollars infringing on this right and billions of dollars protecting other rights. I personally know of no organization, that sucks millions of dollars out of the population for their cause, that practices in the protection of the Second Amendment without infringements. Why?

The Second Amendment seems front and center, one more time and one more time we read and hear from the Press and other anti-Second Amendment tyrants, about masses of American citizens eager to expand background checks in order that any person can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Background checks is registration of guns. People kid themselves, much because they choose to have faith in this corrupt government and believe that when the U.S. Government carries out a background check, information about the person being checked, for gun purchase, is not shared…but it is stored. Therefore, it is a gun registration act. While the check may not contain the information about the gun, it does record that an individual purchased a gun. It will also track, each and every time a person buys a gun.

When argument is made that the requirement of a background check infringes upon a person’s constitutional right, this is most often rebutted by people who state that a background check does not prohibit a person from buying and owning a gun. While not completely true in making such a statement, what is never discussed is that it is not written and surely was not the intent of the Bill of Rights, that a person had to register with the state in order to be able to exercise a constitutional right. Doing so would be an utterly ridiculous idea. Wouldn’t it? Do we have to register to deliver a speech? Would you deem it acceptable to have to get a license to make sure your home isn’t unlawfully entered and searched by government? Would you find it okay to get a license to attend the church of your choice?

I repeat: Government requiring a background check is gun registration. It is at its simplest form an onus placed on the individual, in what must be done in order to exercise a right. That in and of itself can be argued as unconstitutional. This also applies to the act to get licensed/registered to carry a concealed weapon. Disguised as something promoting safety, the registration becomes necessary in order to exercise your Second Amendment right.

Michael Bloomberg, and his little fascists, have invaded the State of Maine, in order to get a referendum placed on a ballot that would implement a draconian law that would require background checks on any and all gun sales and transfers. It’s so absurd that being in someone’s house, let’s say while they were away on vacation, and the house had a gun(s) in it. Both the owner and you would be guilty of failing to get a background check before the “transfer” was made. Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

Background checks is another example of gun registration. Some argue that it will lead to gun registration. They fail to see that it already is a form of gun registration. What happens now when you go buy a new gun? It’s being registered. What happens now if you purchase ammunition and use your credit or debit card? You’ve just “registered” yourself as buying ammunition, which is necessary in order to fully exercise your Second Amendment right.

Yesterday, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching about this unconstitutional act to INFRINGE upon the rights of others. In my reading, I saw references made to Supreme Court rulings about the unconstitutionality of requiring some form of registration in order to exercise a right.

In Thomas v. Collins, 1945, Thomas traveled to Texas to deliver a speech before a group of people lawfully assembled to learn about forming a union. His duty was that only of speaking. Local officials presented Thomas with a restraining order that prohibited him to attend this function and deliver his speech. After consulting his attorney he went ahead and made his speech but was charged with breaking the law because he did not obtain the proper “licenses” to recruit people to a union. The case found it’s way to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Rutledge. The appeal was based on what was believed to be an infringement upon his First Amendment Right of free speech. Justice Rutledge in part stated: “The restraint is not small when it is considered what was restrained. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the Republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed on the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.”

The SCOTUS determined that it was unlawful to limit, through registration, freedom of speech in this case. The local regulations required those who assembled and conducted union forming business, obtain permits to do so. They did. It was believed that because Thomas was to speak to the assembled group, he could have his First Amendment rights restricted because he didn’t obtain a permit first.

You also cannot restrict a constitutional right based on what might happen. Can you?

We see a similar restriction of the First Amendment in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965. In this case, before the SCOTUS, the challenge came as the result of a postal requirement (law) that the post office would not deliver certain “unsealed” mail unless the recipient first “registered” to receive this mail. This was ruled by the court as a First Amendment infringement because it required a “registration” in order to exercise one’s First Amendment.

In Justice Douglas’ majority opinion, he states: “We conclude that the Act [the requirement to register in order to receive perceived unwanted mail] as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”

Something so simple as this and yet the Courts will seemingly go out of their way to protect at least the First Amendment while stripping the Second Amendment to shreds.

If readers can see beyond the end of their noses, they might find the third case an interesting one and an example of how any kind of gun registration can be self-incriminating (Fifth Amendment).

In Haynes v. United States, 1968, Haynes was charged with the violation of 26 U.S.C. 5851(part of the National Firearms Act) because he failed to register a weapon the state had determined to be undesirable, and wanting registration of such a weapon for the purpose of taxation. Haynes contended that the requirement to register his gun would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The majority opinion in this case, while having some issues with the National Firearms Act, found that: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”

The SCOTUS ruled that the requirement to register a firearm, the act of which would incriminate the registrant, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

All of these cases are complicated and full of extenuating circumstances. However, the broader issue here is the effort of the Courts to protect certain constitutional rights while infringing on others, namely the Second Amendment.

It would therefore seem to me, that background checks, being a form of registration, is forcing people to undergo a registration in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. According to these cases, and the context to which those decisions by the Supreme Court were made, makes gun registration unlawful.

Consider the context of the rulings. Simple events like registering with local authorities before delivering a speech, or returning a simple postal card letting the service know whether you wanted to receive questionable materials, where consider such grave infringements, they were done away with in order to protect First Amendment rights.

In the third case, we see where, because of ill-written guns laws, even though a gun may be in a person’s possession without being registered, the protection of the Fifth Amendment and a person’s protective right against self-incrimination, that right being more important than the registration of a gun.

Then why is it that we allow the continued infringements on the Second Amendment? Every time you and I or your neighbor, or the NRA or anybody else says, reasonable restrictions on buying and owning guns are necessary and responsible, we cannot see that these actions are an infringement and therefore is a destruction of the right.

We are not dealing with rational lawmakers and lawyers. Because of much complacency and a willingness of American’s to allow central government to infringe on our Second Amendment, current laws and policies that set precedence, in this day and age of corruption and total disregard of the constitution, become the rule of law. Although executive actions by a sitting president can be overturned, the precedent exists and therefore carries some kind of authority into the future.

We know the Press/Media/Journalists, etc. will fight tooth and nail to protect their First Amendment rights. They will use that right to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

It is, however, very clear that the Second Amendment is fair game for destruction. Those wishing to destroy it, offer no respect to those of us who find it extremely valuable – even to the value that it may be the last fortress that is protecting all the other rights.

I just wonder how these same mental midget, emotional Second Amendment destroyers will see things when their prized right is taken away from them? When it is, it will NOT be because I worked to destroy them.

Filed Under: Featured Article, Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: constitutional amendments, fifth amendment, first amendment, gun rights, guns, haynes v. united states, lamont v. postmaster, second amendment, supreme court, thomas v. collins

Destroying Second Amendment: Create Problem, Force Reaction, Offer Solution

January 21, 2016 by Tom Leave a Comment

One of the problems with the National Rifle Association, as with far too many Americans, is they buckle to nonsensical calls for “reasonable” limitations to a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yes, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided that it was a constitutional right of an American to keep and bear arms. However, in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, he let it be known that the Court’s decision did not prohibit “reasonable” Second Amendment restrictions.

McDonald v. Chicago, had similar results and yet, how free are D.C. and Chicago residents to practice this right to keep and bear arms?

With the only deterrent left in this country to ward off tyranny and dictatorship, the necessary goal for this achievement must be the disarming of the people. It has been systematically at work for a long, long time, albeit slow, it is happening. At the present pace, and the willingness of too many people to place limits on their rights, what then does the future hold for what’s left of American freedom?

Any and all Second Amendment protection groups will never be able to truly address the disarming of Americans until they are willing to understand who is behind it and how it is being done. As brainwashed people, we don’t want to believe that “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12) (Global Power Structure)

The “principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places,” have a very simple formula for controlling people. These rulers have understood human nature for a very long time. They have made it their life’s work. They have understood for a very long time that, civilian gun ownership is a problem for world dominance and control. They also understand that they cannot simply bust in every door in America (yet) and take our guns. There has to be a way to do it in which, not only will people not recognize the effort, they will be eager to comply, to accelerate their own slavery, by believing what they think they are seeing, and heeding what they are told.

As I said, the formula is simple but difficult for blind people to see. First, the rulers create a problem. This is followed in a timely manner with getting the people to react emotionally to the problem. With emotions, especially fear, in place, the very same powers that created the problem, offer a solution.

Most people do not have much difficulty in accepting that there are people who act and react to frightening events in this country, because they believe the “problem” to be real. With fear firmly embedded, those with “solutions” go to work. These solutions are designed only to further the cause of disarmament.

The United States Government has never offered a “program” that was successful – meaning that it did not accomplish for the people what the Government told them it would do. It is successful, if only in tiny increments, to the ruling powers to achieve their long-term goals, i.e. disarmament.

All Government departments and programs are designed for failure and to ensure that the majority of citizens are always and forever dependent upon the same government.

What is most difficult for Americans to swallow, is any suggestion that our own government, the Shadow Government (Council on Foreign Relations) and all the members of the Global Power Structure, wanting us all disarmed, create the so-called “problem.”

When “problems” happen, like a cop shooting, school shooting, theater shooting and now even terrorist shootings, three entities go into action. On the one hand we have the brainwashed people, who have been conditioned to believe that any gun has the ability to kill at random. The mere presence of a gun scares the living daylight out of them. They are programmed to be scared and react accordingly. To go along conveniently with this programmed fear are groups, some of whom are useful idiots who believe what they have been told and will do anything to destroy their own liberties in the name of safety. Some of these groups are planned groups who work directly with the Global Power Structure to perpetuate the fear and the calling for “laws to be made.”

It matters not that laws already exist. These people are scared and are demanding SOMETHING to be done. This is when the Global Power Structure, who created the problem to begin with, steps in with another (final) solution. With each subsequent “problem,” and “reaction,” another “solution” is offered. There is no end to this.

Groups like the NRA, who claim to be defenders and supporters of the Second Amendment, do no such thing when they, not only go along with, but promote “reasonable” limits to the right to keep and bear arms.

Today I posted a link to an article telling of one South Carolina representative who is offering a bill that would require all “journalists” to have background checks and obtain a license to practice their First Amendment rights. Of course the point of the bill is to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the Media and others to take little regard at protecting a right to keep and bear arms, but who show their outrage at anyone suggesting messing with the First Amendment.

It no longer matters that any gun limitation laws will have zero effect on violent crime. Nobody wants to hear that criminals don’t obey laws. This is a product of years of mind control, through propaganda and brainwashing. Step by step, soon the country will be disarmed. The “rulers of darkness” and the “spiritual wickedness in high places,” will continue to create the problem, promote reactions, and then offer their solution. Failure to recognize this formula, will quickly result in the destruction of this nation. This formula is not endemic to only the disarmament of our country. It is at play within every aspect of politics, government and our private lives.

It is time for those who think they support the Second Amendment to step up and help expose the creators of the “problem.”

PROBLEM > REACTION > SOLUTION.

Filed Under: Featured Article, Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: council on foreign relations, district of columbia v. heller, fascism, first amendment, global power structure, gun control, gun rights, guns, justice scalia, mcdonald v. chicago, people control, second amendment, shadow government, slavery, tyranny

Historically Wolves Have Killed Man on Regular Basis

January 19, 2016 by Tom 6 Comments

Despite historic documents that show to the contrary, all too often defenders of large predators, particularly the wolf, go out of their way to deny facts in order that their prized wild dog goes without blame for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

There are even knee-jerk responses from wolf lovers to somehow justify the killing of a person by a wolf because the wolf may have had rabies or some other disease, dishonestly causing people to think this event somehow disqualifies the wolf as a killer. Perhaps it is the same demented notion people have about insanity, that it presents a justifiable cause to kill.

Regardless of how anyone chooses to look at killing, whether a wolf is healthy or sick, under the right circumstances, they will kill and kill repeatedly. This fact does not justify the wanton destruction of wolves, or other large predators. It does, however, call for responsible management and control. As much as some people loathe that man exists and thus interferes with their precious wolves, the same historic documents readily show that wolves, forced into man-settled landscapes, is a formula for disaster – for both man and wolf.

Recently I was reading the “Abstract” of a study about, “Predators that Kill Humans: Myth, Reality, Context and the Politics of Wolf Attacks on People,” John D.C. Linnell, Julien Alleau. The Abstract reads as follows:

Seventeen species of large mammalian carnivore have been documented to kill people, although of these only five or six seem to do it on a regular basis. Predatory attacks on humans are generally rare, which combined with very variable and inconsistent reporting makes it hard to identify the mechanisms and patterns explaining spatial and temporal variation in attacks. In contrast to other species, the extent of wolf attacks on people has been subject to intense controversy in recent decades. Competing myths have been advanced by advocates and opponents of wolves, and the issue has become politically intertwined with a diversity of social conflicts associated with the changing nature of rural life and wildlife conservation in general. Examination of both the historical record and recent reports provides a massive body of evidence that wolves have been involved in many cases of attacks on humans. Although many of these cases are linked with rabid wolves, there is also plenty of evidence of recurring cases of predatory attacks. Because these have been associated with a special set of environmental circumstances (absence of wild prey, heavily modified landscapes, high density of humans engaged in vulnerable activities) that are no longer present in most areas the risks of wolf attacks are currently very low in most of wolf distribution. An emerging situation in North America and Europe concerns the appearance of fearless and habituated wolves, which requires careful study to develop appropriate threat assessments, mitigation measures and reaction responses.

The key elements here to pay attention to are “historical records,” “recurring cases of …attacks,” and “a special set of environmental circumstances.” Denying any and all of these serves no purpose other than to influence public opinion that might run contrary to the agendas of those intent of having large predators in everyone’s back yard.

While it is one thing to deny historic documentation, working feverishly to enhance the “special set of environmental circumstances” will accelerate the onset of human/wolf attacks. It would be of an extremely perverse intention that anybody would want for killing of humans by wolves. But, we do live in extremely perverse times.

In Will Graves book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages,” his travels and research to Russia provided clear documentation of the hundreds of thousands of attacks on man and property throughout Russian history.

Chapter 6 of Grave’s book reveals what seems an unending documentation of wolf attacks on humans. It becomes clear as you read the accounts that the number of attacks on humans is directly proportional to the wolf population. There are, of course, other environmental circumstances that influence this event. None of these circumstances should be ignored or denied.

Chapter 3 of “The Real Wolf,” co-author Ted B. Lyon writes:

“Save the Wolf” dogma indicates that wolves are not dangerous to humans, despite centuries of historical evidence to the contrary. This willingness to ignore historical records accompanies a propensity to rewrite the wolf’s history and habits, leaving people unprepared.

Centuries of historical evidence clearly and specifically recounts fatal wolf attacks. Wolves hunt in packs, thereby making them very dangerous to the relatively defenseless human. Unless wolves are routinely hunted, trapped, or shot at, they do not recognize or fear humans as the dominant species and instead view them as potential prey. Wolves are dangerous predators and should be viewed as such.

Once again, we are told not to ignore or deny historical evidence. Even if wolf attacks on humans are a “rare” event (this is a value-based adjective), educating oneself to the facts of wolf habits and those environmental circumstances that drive a wolf to want to attack and kill man, might, one day, save a life and that of a wolf.

In my own book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?,” beginning around page 18, I spend several pages dealing with wolf history, including world wide events of wolf attacks on humans. These attacks were a regular event and people had to learn how to deal with it or die. Often wolf advocates ridicule any occasion that might involve human fear of wild wolves. It is quite unfortunate because it sets an improper stage of learning how to deal with these animals. It’s easy to sit back and snicker, when you have never had to deal with an attacking wolf. Why is history so much denied?”

Throughout the First Chapter of, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I shared parts of documents from written accounts of wolves and human encounters from many parts of the world. These accounts are fascinating and full of information all of us can learn from. But will we?

The other day, I received a document that comes from Page 130 of Kaj Granlund’s book, “Vargens Europa.” This book (no English translated version available yet) documents the wolf and its history – how wolves for thousands of years have terrorized the world’s rural populations.

Please find a pdf of Page 130 here.

This document shows nearly 180 confirmed human deaths, caused by wolves, in Finland from 1710 – 1881. What is also remarkable in this document is how it shows that once wolves attack and kill one person, it is followed by more attacks. The author told me, “It is obvious from the table that when a wolf (pack) discovers humans as potential prey, it turns focus on humans instead of traditional pray.”

It is also important to point out some of the “environmental circumstances” surrounding this table. From the “Abstract” above, we are told that within each region where wolves exist, circumstances drive the habits of wolves. Readers of this website should, by now, have a pretty good understanding about how to recognize many of those circumstances by reading Dr. Valerius Geist’s, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?”

Author Granlund writes in an email to me, “You have to know a bit about our history to understand variations. In fact the only thing we know is that these people were killed by wolves. We don’t know how many others were killed as the resident registration was kept by the local vicars. The vicars only registered important events as marriages, births and deaths. Births were registered on the parent’s, not on the born child.

If the body was found the vicar wrote in his diary name, date when killed, age and COD. If someone simply disappears in the forest nothing was written in the books. They knew the different diseases. If someone was attached by rabid wolves and he/she was infected then the COD would have been “wolf + rabies”. If a rabid wolf simply kills its victim and escapes, the COD would probably be “killed by wolf”.

There are some events in our history that needs some attention. During the Great Northern War (1700 – 1721) many events were never recognized because whole families disappeared from their homes without notice. Some were simply killed, others taken as slaves and brought to Russia.

After 1809 Finland was ruled by the Russian emperor (tsar). The welfare began to rise and the statistics were more accurate. Several events affected human-wolf relationship during 1860’s and after. Without digging too deep into history, one law that came into force was the dog licence fee (read tax). There was an annual fee on each dog which rapidly reduced the number of guarding dogs thus making it easier for wolves to roam without notice in inhabited areas.

The wolves were practically exterminated by Russian wolf hunters in the 1880’s and the wolf attacks came to an end.

As I have said, it is easy to lay claim that wolves don’t attack people, when one’s sphere of reality is limited to local surroundings and never having to encounter of deal with wolves. With self-imposed limitations of wolf history, how can anyone be expected to responsibly deal with the reality of wolves?

At the most elemental level of understanding, if wolf populations continue to rise in the United States and spread throughout greater geographical regions, it only stands to reason that the envelope of certain attacks will also increase.

Use some logical understanding and reason. We know that in places where many wolves roam and few people live, accounts of wolf attacks is quite rare. What then happens if many wolves are forced into man-inhabited areas?

If one was to honestly evaluate all the possible environmental circumstances that can and will drive a wolf, or any large predator, including an increase in numbers of wolves and numbers of humans, it makes little sense to deliberately increase the chances that someone is going to get killed.

Stop ignoring history. Examine the evidence. Understand the variables that changes habits of wolves and large predators. Let people live in peace.

Filed Under: Featured Article, history, National/World, Predators Tagged With: finland, history, kaj granlund, ted b. lyon, will graves, wolves

Obama Cries Over Violence, Americans Should Cry Over Lost Freedom

January 6, 2016 by Tom 4 Comments

While President Barack Obama sobs like a baby over dead children in Sandy Hook, it’s unfortunate he doesn’t have the same feelings each and every time a child dies in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, etc. He robs Americans of their rights, including the right to choose, forcing his subjects to have even more faith and trust in his government. And if his sincere concern is over senseless violence and killings, why doesn’t he give lip service to addressing that crime, by enforcing existing laws, in order to save lives?

There must be something wrong with a man’s mind, that would find ANY reason to trust man-government.

Such is the constitution of Obama’s newest exercise in Fascism as he attempts to convince people that strengthening background checks and intruding into the lives and privacy of senior citizens is going to make anybody safer.

Oh, yes. I’ll expect that there will be those who will demonize me because somehow, in their pea brains, they think I am opposed to keeping destructive weapons out of the hands of those most dangerous to wield them. Because of their ignorance and blind willingness to trust in their mAN-gOD-gOVERNMENT, the brainwashing leaves them no alternative than to exclaim only what they have been forced to believe. I oppose measures that claim to address gun violence, when in fact, Obama’s Executive Order may make matters worse AND it ONLY further degrades the rights of Americans. How is this helpful?

The idea that guns and the freedom to own them – the only assurance man might have left to ward off tyrannical rule; rule so exemplified in this administration, as well as past ones – is somehow causing more violence is insanity because it is an unproven claim – a claim made by tyrants. Data confirms the opposite. But that will never stop the totalitarians bent on their own self-destruction, their own eagerness to give their all to their gOD-gOVERNMENT, casting their freedoms into the cesspools of political crime and hatred.

An examination of Obama’s Executive Order to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer, shows what, on the surface, there are sensible cries to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Only an idiot would read this call to Fascism and think it is going to accomplish anything the title says it will.

Who can resist calls to take “steps to address these horrible tragedies.” So, why don’t we? Why do we never address what causes bad people to do bad things? Why don’t we address violence in movies, music and video games. Why don’t we address the results of a progressive, liberal/leftist lifestyle rooted in immorality? To be so ignorant to think a person can become radicalized by visiting Online websites and not be radicalized by mesmerizing, brain-twisting American music, movies and video games is shameful idiocy.

But American Society hasn’t, particularly in recent years, been much interested in actually finding moral cures to immoral lifestyles. We are more interested in creating fake cures that assist us in releasing guilt we acquire from willingly participating in perverted, violent, decedent and careless lifestyles. Make a new law and it makes us feel better. But then we don’t.

Surely there are more things that kill us than guns. The math must show that there are probably more lives saved due to the existence of guns, than are lost. But that doesn’t matter. We have been programmed to think otherwise – guns kill people…period!

Odd, isn’t it, that most of us can watch a movie, play a video game, or watch our children play a video game that has guns and violence, and we are desensitized to it. It is, after all, a game. Mention a gun anywhere else in society and people freak out. This is planned mind manipulation through propaganda. We create false “gun free zones” and yet allow our children to enter the artificial world of digital violence, turning them into techno-zombies, somehow convinced it is benign.

The “wrong” people should not have guns because those “wrong” people do not value life. The “wrong” people should not drive cars, fly airplanes, have children, marry or be around those of the opposite sex. Why then, do we and this president, think that somehow, in any rational way, men can decide who qualifies and who doesn’t when it comes to guns. It’s always the damned guns!

Look at the Executive Order. Examine it for what it says and doesn’t say. Forget what you HOPE Obama’s idealism will accomplish. Examination should tell us that the entire concept of Obama’s vision to “reduce gun violence and make communities safer” is for us to trust him, his administration, Congress and some random man-gods who will be given the power to label whomever they choose as being undesirable to own and/or buy a gun. Man-gods will determine who is insane and who isn’t. The world is insane!

Some will call me paranoid or scared, perhaps insane, but please, somebody show me why, with the history of man-governments, you and I should trust anything they will do. Historically, what has happened to millions of dead people who trusted their governments – trusting them to disarm the “right” wrong people?

In Germany, based on propagandized fear, the government approached disarmament of the citizenry the same way. How did that turn out? This action is not endemic to only Germany. And, Obama and the rest of you totalitarians think I should trust government? Who’s insane?

When Germany began to create gun laws that would give power to somebody to decide who should and shouldn’t have a gun, examination of the history and facts show us the governmental abuse that occurred, when fine citizens had their rights taken away from them because the existing government saw anyone opposed to, or spoke out against them, as being “undesirables” and shouldn’t own a gun. They all were killed!

It matters not whether you want to think or accept the possibility that abuses will happen, the structure for the possibility now exists in this executive order. All it takes is one bad apple. Just like those few bad people who shouldn’t own guns, there are bad people who shouldn’t be placed in position of authority over other people.

This executive order will not reduce gun violence. This executive order will not make our communities safer. It may, possibly, make things worse. As a society, until we address the real causes of an immoral people, things will only continue to spiral downward.

I would like to see less gun violence. I would like to see less vehicular violence, less movie violence, less video game violence, less sporting event violence, etc. Making laws to take away man’s rights will not cure that problem, nor will executive orders exclaimed to be able to stop or reduce gun violence.

Obama, in his crying speech, said that people have a right to go to a movie or go to church – where gun violence has occurred – and that the Second Amendment shouldn’t have more rights than freedom of speech or religion. And yet, he obviously is a hypocrite because he has shown that it is okay to limit the right of one freedom over another, so long as it’s the one of his choice. Nonsense! Who’s insane?

His brain is so messed up to think that anybody going into a movie theater or a church to kill people, is exercising their Second Amendment right. They are criminals, of which there already exists laws to deal with that. How does it make it right that some Americans should have their right to keep and bear arms limited believing that right is bigger than any other, while making the others bigger? Using Obama’s logic, then why, if the gun lobby is so powerful and full of lies, as he claims, are they not lobbying to restrict where people can go to worship or watch a movie. Who’s insane?

I’m tired of never addressing the real cause of violence. This criminal president, his administration and all of Congress should stop restricting my choices to live free and safe while doing nothing to stop the root cause of violence and addressing crime with criminal laws that already exist.

Perhaps when a government continually exercises violence on its own people, and people around the globe, it fails to recognize the calamity of violence all around them. Crocodile tears will affect the children and those who are incapable of independent thought, while the rest of us watch the onset of greater, deep-rooted fascism.

Filed Under: Featured Article, Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: background checks, executive orders, gun control, obama, privacy, rights, second amendment

Bloomberg’s “Everytown” Gun Grabbers More Connected Than You Might Know

I Thought Wolf Delisting Law Prohibited Judicial Review

BLINDED: The Two-Sided Believers

Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

Maine: An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Second Amendment Brainwashing

Second Amendment is Considered “Infringable” by Most

Destroying Second Amendment: Create Problem, Force Reaction, Offer Solution

Historically Wolves Have Killed Man on Regular Basis

Obama Cries Over Violence, Americans Should Cry Over Lost Freedom

Search this Site

Subscribe to Tom Remington

Recent Posts

Contributing Authors’ Work

Archived Articles

Categories

Meta

Bible/Prophecy/Religion

Man Is Incapable To Comprehend The Differences Between Man and Beast

Yehwah Must “Abhorreth” Many

Maine House Fearful of Lawsuits Passes Bill to Allow “Religious” People to Forego Wearing Blaze Orange

The Sin of Perverted Animal Existence

As in the Days of Noah and Sodom

Man Is Incapable To Comprehend The Differences Between Man and Beast

Yehwah Must “Abhorreth” Many

The Stupidest High School Science Teacher In The U.S.

Dear Montana Wolf Hunter: Do You Have a Strong Emotional Bond With Wolves?

Health – They Are Killing Us

Healthcare Or Disease Management?

How To Have HEALTHY Kidneys For Life DESPITE Medical Eugenics

Photon Genius Client With Cancer Grateful To Ed Skilling

Islesboro Residents Concerned Over Lyme Disease, But Not Concerned Enough Evidently

If Climate Change is “Settled Science” Why Do We Continue to Research?