February 25, 2018

Let the Whining About Maine’s Deer Harvest Report Commence

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

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

itrustmygovernmenthat

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

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

10-yearharvestreportdates

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

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

A friend said to me:

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

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

DON’T GO LOOK!

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

madjack

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

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

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

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

cheesewithwhine

Share

Question 3: If What We Are Told is True

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Incrementalism of Disarmament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, Don’t Go Look!

Share

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

BloombergNanny*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)

12 For 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.

 

Share

I Thought Wolf Delisting Law Prohibited Judicial Review

wolfutahIn 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.

 

Share

BLINDED: The Two-Sided Believers

OnceYouAwakeThere 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.

Share

Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

NewOldRopeThe 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?

Share

Maine: An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

SAMWhen 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.

  1. 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.
  2. It prohibits the department from relocating a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.
  3. It prohibits the department from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an affected animal.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

 

Share