December 8, 2019

Maine’s Legislature Overrides LePage’s Anti-Hunting Veto

How much clearer do you send a message to the governor than to override his veto in both houses with unanimous votes? Such was the case in Maine as the Legislature by votes of 33-0 in the Senate and 148-0 in the House overrode Governor LePage’s veto of bill LD 1816.

If you recall I recently made comments on two bills that the governor signed his veto to – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 was more of a discriminatory bill than anti-hunting. This issue stems from making laws to stop illegal baiting of deer for hunting purposes. The initial passage of a bill aimed at addressing this concern came last year when the Legislature passed LD 1083. In that bill, the punishment for a second offense of hunting over bait required a lifetime loss of hunting privileges. Some, like Sen. Davis, believed that punishment to be beyond the scope of the severity of the crime and wished to amend that bill to make a second-offense punish a two-year license loss. LD 1816 passed both houses but the governor vetoed it. The vote to override was unanimous.

In my comments about LePage’s veto I wrote: “Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.”

Senator Paul Davis was quoted in the Piscataquis Observer that: “The fact of the matter is, deer baiting laws only really apply to hunters who don’t have the economic means to purchase land and manage for crops that attract deer. It is perfectly legal to hunt over a crop, yet it is illegal to hunt deer over a pile of apples. This discrepancy in Maine law treats some hunters differently than others, and I don’t believe that it is fair. That’s why I feel strongly that this crime shouldn’t carry a more severe penalty than other crimes that are much worse, such as hunting game out of season or illegal night hunting.”

Now perhaps it is time for some Maine politician(s) to do the right thing and step forward to change the recent law (LD 557) passed that wrongly punishes hunters more than all others for the same crime. Unconstitutional Animus, or a serious violation of equal protection under the law, does not permit a more severe punish against one group over another. Last June (2017) I wrote: “I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case, a hunter or fisherman is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.”

The Maine legislature has righted one wrong in bringing the punishment for hunting over bait back to something more sensible. They still need to clear up the contradictions and definitions between hunting over a crop and hunting over a bait pile.

Now if they can straighten out this ridiculous discriminatory law that targets hunters for greater punishment than all other groups, things would be better off.

Share

Maine Governor Vetoes Two Hunting Related Bills

Maine Governor Paul LePage has vetoed two hunting-related bills – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 is a bill that would reduce the second offense penalty for hunting deer over bait from a lifetime license ban back to a two-year suspension. Here is the statement Governor LePage made public for his reason for vetoing the new bill.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://tomremington.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LD-1816.pdf” title=”LD 1816″]

Governor LePage cited a reason for keeping the lifetime license suspension as punishment for a second offense as being a strong deterrent to stop illegal hunting of deer over bait. With unclear definitions as to what determines “bait”, it would appear that abuse by law enforcement and the courts could make for as much trouble as the handful of those charged with hunting over bait now.

Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.

It would appear that while it may be a strong deterrent, the punishment may not fit the crime when comparatives are made with all laws and punishments in Maine.

LD 1823 is a bill that made permanent a temporary law that allowed nonresidents to hunt on the “Residents Only” Saturday prior to the open season on deer, provided that nonresident owned at least 25 acres of land in the state. Here is the Governor’s reason for the veto.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://tomremington.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LD-1823.pdf” title=”LD 1823″]

I never liked the bill in the first place. While it seems a good thing to make hunting opportunity available whenever possible, this kind of legislation simply reeks of preferred treatment, discrimination, and elitism.

Hunting should never be meted out in any fashion when determined by social status. Simply because a person is wealthy enough, or through inheritance, to own land equalling at least 25 acres shouldn’t give them privilege over someone else who doesn’t.

While LePage believes the Residents Day Only is special for Maine residents and should remain that way, consideration of making it also open to nonresidents should be all or nothing.

Let the discriminatory bill sunset. The veto was good.

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

Conspiracy Theory As Insult AND Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution as a Bonus

“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..”~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

Thus begins the proposal that goes forward to become the most eloquent statement of conspiracy theory ever penned by mankind.

Conspiracy has played a large part in forming the march of history. In fact this nation was the result of the conspiracy theories of the the founders who allegedly wrote the Declaration of Independence__another conspiracy that resulted in the U.S. corpration, truth be known they were conspiring with the King all along. The majority of that document is a list of charges against the British King George, that is long list of conspiracy charges against the King’s tyranny against his own American British subjects settling this continent.. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence.. Maybe you should read it again and again until you get it…Then moving on there is the conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar, to the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, to the Dreyfus Affair, MKUltra, the Gulf of Tonkin affair, the assassination of JFK, to the Watergate burglary, and the Iran Contra affair of the present era, the conspiracy to kill RFK, MLK, the failed attempt on Reagan..

There has been 5-7 U.S. presidents assassinated in U.S. history.. Hilariously all official conspiracy claims are BELIEVED, while whoever is skeptical of the Ministry of Truths conspiratorial explanations of criminal events is called a conspiracy theorist nut case… Obviously by state programmed true believers.. The Bible is a conspiracy theory, a real one… Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly we can all agree on this. So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? The term “conspiracy theory” is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from “the people” and as excuses for war for the acquisition of another countries resources.. Oops..

How about the CIA installing puppet presidents in foreign countries? oops.. What is the definition of “covert operations”? These certainly entail government decisions, which are normally conducted in secret by powerful people. Oops.. Are the “anti-conspiracists” seriously going to deny that the Intelligence agencies of the US do not in fact carry out covert operations? Is it not a proven historical fact that such operations are standard procedures for all governments? Even the nomenclature of such operations are well known; “modified limited hangout”, “revetments” “plausible deniability”, “executive action”, “wet work”, “enhanced interrogation” oops… Everyone knows the government lies to them, the left says the right lies the right says the left lies… oops… The other political party is conspiring against the other political party…oops.. A national security agency, a national security state is the very definition of a conspiracy…

Criminal theory, crime theory, critical thinking theory, coincidence theory, skepticism theory.. For something to be a conspiracy theory means that something whatever it was or is, is factual and if a man or woman examines the theory of whatever that something was or is they are then called a conspiracy theorist, I like conspiracy analyst myself.. But then aren’t police and prosecutors conspiracy theorists or are they just criminal theorists… The government is a conspiracy theorist, the government theory of the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the MLK assassination..Enter into any court room in the world and what do we discover taking place in there, the prosecution is conspiring against the defense and vice versa. And everyone sitting in there is conspiring in support of one side or the other, they’re all breathing together, even the judge is in on it.. It is what it is..

There is the governments published conspiracy theory known as the Warren Commission report. The government theory on 9/11… Conspiracy has played a large part in forming the march of history.  So the anti conspiracy mentality is social engineering, I like to call those the conspiracy of psychology theories against conspiracy theories, or conspiracists theorizing about flaws in official conspiracy theories… The CIA of course created a legal document back in the 1960s as a ruse to defend the official conspiracy theory narrative of the JFK assassination to demonize critics of the Warren Commission Report.. So that is definitely a conspiracy right there itself, the conspiracy against conspiracy theorists..The Conspiracy to Defame Conspiracy Theory.. So the conspiracy anyone is theorizing about is a factual conspiracy, what is theorized about is evidence, who benefited, who else was involved.. Everyone out there is not gullible, not all of those of us are afraid to open up our mouths and say hey wait a minute that official story sounds a lot like well, uh, BULLSHIT..

CIA Document 1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

Conspiracist: one who believes or promotes a conspiracy theory.
First Known Use of CONSPIRACIST: 1976
Synonyms 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one.
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[17][18] A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.
[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a “general intent” to violate the law.
Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this “overt act” element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy.[19]
International law
Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg Trials for members of the Nazi leadership charged with participating in a “conspiracy or common plan” to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, and was incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.- Wiki
________________________________
‘Conspiracy Theory’ As Insult
The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination!

Are groups of federalists keeping secrets committing conspiracy? They just might be.. I’d say its a safe bet they’re conspiring to confiscate small arms.. I’d venture to say the law already exists and is awaiting announcement, and even dare say they all know it…

Article 1 Section 5 – they can keep whoever they want secret for as long as they want…
U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 5
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 5 – Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
<>
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The 1947 National Security Act… in legal parlance this document allows federal agencies to keep whatever they want secret from you if they do not want you to know anything about whatever that is thus they don’t have to tell you… Congress approved necessary and proper… Oops, thats not conspiring against you stakeholder right to know is it…. they have agreed that their Congress has to keep secrets from time to time oopsy daisy…I’d say most of the time if not ll of the time.. They even kept it secret who “We The People” really is…

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195385168/resources/chapter10/nsa/nsa.pdf

Ok, enjoy your coincidence theories, psychological theories, mythical histories and the bubble gum scientism…

Have a great day…

Share

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share

Secretary Zinke Partners with ?Congress on Bipartisan Bill to Fix Our National Parks

Press Release from the Department of Interior:

Marks an important component of President Trump’s Infrastructure Framework for Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure

3/7/2018
Last edited 3/7/2018

Date: March 7, 2018
Contacts: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke joined U.S. Senator s Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Angus King (I-ME) , Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and others to introduce a bipartisan bill to rebuild America’s National Park s. The proposed bill would use up to $18 billion in revenue derived from energy produced on federal lands and waters to establish a special fund within the Treasury specifically for “National Park Restoration”. The bill follows the blueprint laid out in Secretary Zinke and President Trump’s budget proposal, the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. The Alexander/King bill’s cosponsors are: Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cory Gardner (R-CO) , and Thom Tillis (R-NC). This bill fulfills one of the priorities laid out in President Trump’s legislative framework for rebuilding America’s infrastructure.

” Infrastructure is an investment, not merely an expense. And every dollar we put in to rebuilding our parks, will help bolster the gateway communities that rely on park visitation for economic vitality. Since the early days of my confirmation, I’ve been talking with members of the House and Senate about how we can use energy revenue to rebuild and revitalize our parks and communities,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “Infrastructure is also about access for all Americans. Not all visitors to our parks have the ability to hike with a 30-pound pack and camp in the wilderness miles away from utilities. In order for families with young kids , elderly grandparents , or persons with disabilities to enjoy the parks, we need to rebuild basic infrastructure like roads, trails, lodges, restrooms and visitors centers. This bill is the largest investment in National Parks in our nation’s history. This is not a republican or democrat issue, this is an American issue, and I think that the bipartisan body of lawmakers who put this bill forward is proof.”

“This legislation will help address the over $11 billion maintenance backlog at our national parks, including the $215 million backlog of projects in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,” Senator Alexander said. “The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of America’s greatest treasures – and it has a tremendous economic impact in East Tennessee, attracting nearly twice the visitors of any other national park. Addressing the maintenance backlog will help attract even more visitors and create more jobs for Tennesseans. We must continue to work together to find solutions to the many challenges facing our public lands, and this legislation takes an important step toward doing that.”

“Montanans are blessed to have America’s most beautiful national parks right outside our front doors,” said Senator Daines.“These critical economic drivers must be maintained and protected so that our outdoor economy can continue to grow and our parks remain accessible to all Montanans. This bipartisan bill is a commonsense step forward to ensure that the challenges facing our national parks are finally addressed.”

“For more than a century, our national parks have inspired and amazed countless visitors,” said Senator King. “Unfortunately, these parks don’t take care of themselves – they need maintenance to ensure that future generations can experience the same wonder that so many Americans already have. This bill is a practical step to help clear the existing maintenance backlog, and protect these treasured lands for years to come.”

“As someone who loves public lands and our National Parks, I am thrilled to be standing here today with Secretary Zinke, Senator Alexander, Senator King, and Congressman Schrader to propose a solution to fixing the backlog maintenance,” said Congressman Mike Simpson. “Growing up in Yellowstone’s backyard, it is important that we pay it forward to future visitors that deserve the same quality experience as past generations. There are many people who deserve credit for bringing this issue to the forefront and I look forward to working with them to advance legislation that fixes our Parks.”

“Oregonians have a genuine appreciation for the outdoors and our National Parks and recreation areas,” said Representative Schrader. “Our ability to enjoy and appreciate that natural beauty is limited when upkeep on our federal lands isn’t sufficiently funded allowing critical maintenance to fall by the wayside. Not only does that impact our enjoyment of the land, but it poses serious risks to the protection of these areas and hurts our communities that rely on the economic benefit from visitors. Currently, our national parks are in dire need of maintenance with a more than ten billion dollar backlog. Our bill provides an innovative solution by creating the National Park Restoration Fund which will provide mandatory funding from unutilized resources already available to us, to bring that backlog down and ensure our National Park System is well and safely kept for generations to come.”

The National Park Service estimates that its maintenance and repair backlog exceeds $11.6 billion. In 2017, 330 million people visited the 417 NPS sites across the country. The NPS completed over $650 million in maintenance and repair work in FY 2017, but aging facilities, high visitation, and resource constraints have kept the maintenance backlog between $11 billion and $12 billion since 2010.

Some examples of maintenance projects include:

  • ??Everglades National Park (Florida) – Showers, campgrounds and lodges that were destroyed during a hurricane more than a decade ago remain broken. Total Everglades maintenance backlog cost, more than $90 million.
  • Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (Indiana) – Earlier this month, an observation deck overlooking Lake Michigan crumbled and fell to the ground after years of erosion. Total Indiana Dunes maintenance backlog cost, more than $26 million.
  • Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona) – A pipeline, and the only infrastructure to deliver water to the South Rim Village of 19,634 people daily for drinking, cooking and firefighting, breaks several times a year putting the well-being of the community including park lodges, visitor centers, homes, and Grand Canyon hikers at risk. Total Grand Canyon maintenance backlog cost, more than $329 million.
  • ??Statue of Liberty National Monument (NY/NJ) – $34.45 million is needed to stabilize the Ellis Island Seawall, which protects Ellis Island from erosion of wave action. $3.77 million is also needed to rehabilitate the Fire-Life-Safety System in the Main Immigration Building, where 2.2 million annual visitors start and end their visit to the island. Total Statue of Liberty National Monument maintenance backlog cost, more than $166 million.

While National Parks have enjoyed historic visitation over the past few years, many Americans have never been to a NPS
site and are unfamiliar with what infrastructure they hold. Here’s a quick look at National Park Service infrastructure across the board:

  • More than 5,500 miles of paved roads
  • More than 1,700 bridges and tunnels
  • More than 17,000 miles of trails
  • More than 1,300 campgrounds
  • More than 24,000 buildings including more than 500 visitor centers, 425 park lodges and hotel buildings, 3,870 housing units and more than 3,700 bathrooms
  • More than 1,000 miles of water pipelines
  • More than 1,500 water systems
  • More than 1,800 wastewater systems
  • More than 500 electrical systems
Share

Jerks in Florida Pass Ridiculous Anti-Second Amendment Bill in Knee-Jerk Fashion

Reinforcing the fact that people refuse to react unemotionally or learn anything from history, has reared up in Florida where legislators crucified the Second Amendment, my inalienable right to self-defense, gave out of control cops more power to confiscate guns from somebody they might not like, and placed power in the hands of government and government agencies to decide if someone is “mental.” What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps such fascist idiocy on display in Florida is the result of the fascist idiocy on display in Washington where lying, anti-gun President Trump said he supported taking away people’s guns and worrying about Due Process later.

All of this brings rushing back to me H.L. Mencken’s quote: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Need I remind readers that our local, state, and federal governments are made up “the American public?”

A total of $700 million dollars in funding is included in this fascist move with $470 million going to mental health issues alone. Briefly, the new law, unless vetoed by the governor, includes possible arming of some in schools – restricted to a very limited number and of those who might be eligible; establish a 3-day waiting period for the purchase of any gun; outlaws “bump-stocks” (and I doubt seriously they even know what one is); and raise the minimum age to be able to buy a gun to 21.

And I have to ask, HOW IN HELL DOES ANY OF THIS STOP OR SLOW DOWN MASS SCHOOL SHOOTINGS?

For those interested in the 105-page fascist bill that just passed 67-50, you can find SB7026 at this link. 

Share

Deliberate Legal Jury-rigging in Maine’s Right to Hunt Proposal

At the onset of the discovery, one might ask how can any government entity be so damned stupid. But if we could only be honest with ourselves, we might just discover that the stupidity is deliberate, dishonest jury-rigging by some with the knowledge that the ignorant casting the votes don’t know the difference…or not.

I’ve often commented that we live in a “Post-Normal” world – down is up, left is right, black is white, etc. It is nothing new to discover that law proposals contain confusing language. I say confusing as it only applies to the lazy, automatons that don’t take time to read and understand what they are voting for. In many instances, it doesn’t matter anyway. Ballots will be cast according to how the representatives were told (threatened) to vote…or else.

Some in Maine have been trying to pass an amendment to the Maine Constitution sold as a means to guarantee a Maine citizen the right to hunt, trap, and fish. Even though I have said this effort comes years too late, it hasn’t stopped some from trying to get something passed even if it is mostly a worthless amendment. With each passing year, voters become more deeply brainwashed into the Environmentalism’s way of thinking, complete with animal perversion perpetuated by misguided scientism and an immoral, off-track society.

It now appears that the proposed vote on the amendment went to both the Maine House and Senate but was presented with different wording in each case. I.e in one instance a “yes” vote meant no and a “no” vote meant yes.

In a “clarification” sent out by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, it reads: “The majority report for the House is “ought not to pass”, a yes vote means you are against the constitutional amendment a no vote means the legislator was for the amendment.  Confusing I know. 

*The opposite is true for the Senate.  The motion in the Senate was the minority, ought to pass report.  A yes vote in the Senate is for the constitutional amendment.”

Deliberately confusing I would say.

Perhaps there is lots of stupidity to go around to the fact that someone(s) couldn’t do a better job with how a proposal was worded. And then again, maybe it was intended to be that way.

The truthful question is, who can be trusted anymore? Governments are worthless. Governments are corrupt – at all levels. And you put your faith and trust in them? Shame on you!

You decide whether this “failure” is due to ignorance, stupidity, laziness, ineptitude, corruption or a combination of any and all. One thing is certain, it didn’t have to be handled this way. Would the vote have been different? We may never know.

Shame on the many!!

Share

Rural vs. Urban: The Growing Divide

It is often talked about how the “Red States” make up much of rural America and the “Blue States” are comprised of the urban dwellers. I know an entire book could be written about whether such a divide is a planned event or one of evolutionary happenstance. I’ll leave that debate for another time.

State by state we constantly hear of political and economic activities surrounding demographic differences. The reality of our existence shows that people of different ideology choose to live in areas best suited to them. This is a natural occurrence and the end result is a separation of oftentimes distinctly different cultures.

In what I believe to be a false paradigm of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican, the “True Believers” as they become more easily convinced of political and ideological values it fuels the fire which further inflames the anger and hatred associated with political and cultural differences.

The false paradigm is in the belief that one political party is actually separate and different from the other while looking out for your best interest. While one’s own conscience, character, and personality may give us our political and moral persuasions, it is a false belief that one political party operates autonomously and isn’t controlled by higher powers, nor are they interested in your’s or my best interest short of what it takes to steal your vote.

We can easily see the results of the efforts, programmed or otherwise, in the creation of a distinct divide in this country. Not only are we subjected to more outright verbal floggings and sometimes physical ones due to our political or cultural differences (I guess we can throw in religion as well) but the segregation or the desire for such is welling up, shown in different ways, within the several states.

Because these political and cultural differences exist, suggestions on how to deal with or find a solution to this problem vary considerably.

I have written in the past some about one particular issue in the State of Maine. David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has been pushing for several election cycles to change the process for public initiatives being placed on the ballot. The current process only requires a percentage of registered voters according to the number of ballots cast in the last election. These signatures can come from anywhere within the state boundaries.Trahan’s bill would require that the petition signature process obtain an equitable number of signatures from each of Maine’s two Congressional Districts -rural vs. urban.

Trahan, in testimony before the legislative committee, said, “For decades, many Mainers have argued that there are two Maine’s, North and South. Many in the North feel as though they have no voice in Augusta politics. In March of 2012, State Representative, Henry Joy of Crystal even proposed Legislation that would have allowed Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, Penobscot and parts of Washington, Hancock and Oxford counties to become their own State called Maine. Southern and coastal Maine would be renamed the state of Northern Massachusetts.”

It is no secret that the notion that “Many in the North” feel they have no voice in Augusta, is due to political and cultural differences based on a different value system. Historically, ballots cast in the State of Maine clearly reflect that there exists a distinct political difference between Northern Maine and Southern Maine.

Instead of Trahan calling for a secession from Maine by the North, he is actually suggesting one condition in which both “parties” are forced to seek out political and cultural adversaries as a means of accomplishing distinct political and cultural opposing proposals as a way of making things more equitable when it comes to the promotion of political and cultural dogma. Not only does one have to ask if this will accomplish what is intended in making the system more reasonable, but is it really possible?

Maine also has those proposing a constitutional amendment believed to guarantee and protect a Maine citizen’s right to hunt and fish. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree with such a constitutional reformation isn’t part of the point to be made here. What is the point is that conditions exist in this state where it is felt, due to political and cultural differences, that a threat exists because of one ideology opposing the other.

The majority of people who live in Northern Maine want to protect that right, while the majority of those to the South, find the need to protect that right as being unnecessary.

Do we then attempt to force one side to work with the other side by requiring an effort to place initiatives on the ballot, such as banning bear beating, to get a fair and honest representation of the state’s population, both north and south, or would it be better to create two states or some other remedy?

This dilemma is not endemic to the State of Maine. I was reading an opinion piece today in the USA Today Online. Written by Glenn Reynolds, he shares information about other states attempting to deal with these political, economic, and cultural differences.

Reynolds begins his piece with: “We’re starting to hear more about secession…wanting to separate from the population-dense urban areas that essentially control state decision-making…that they are governed by people in distant urban centers who know little, and care less, about their way of life.” 

This is the common theme throughout. I’ll guarantee it exists at some level in every state and perhaps every nation in the world. Can this be changed?

What is not so common is how to deal with it. In California, some are calling for a total secession and creating other distinct states. Others suggest turning the entire region into six separate zones, each recognizable due to their defined political, economic and cultural ideology.

New York is another example of how New York City seems to dominate and dictate all things to the remainder of the state, many of whom completely disagree with the rulings of the higher population.

We find the same problems in Washington State and Oregon, between the east and the west parts of each state, as well as in Illinois between the north and the south.

Is there an answer? Is this an idealistic pipe dream? Aren’t the suggestions of separation and secession nothing more than a reversal of ideology back to segregation? If so, then is segregation natural and more workable?

The author suggests some form of a stronger Federal Government presence that prohibits the states from making stricter laws than what the Feds mandate.

What could possibly go wrong?

Share

Maine Legislature Approves Consideration of Four Fascist Bills They Claim Will Make Schools Safer

Right on cue, the knee-jerk jerkers in Maine are hard at it proposing worthless fascist-style bills, I suppose feeling the need to “do something.”

History is proving that nobody ever learns anything from history.

Here’s a peek at the four pieces of proposed legislation that made its way past the emergency bill standards of the Legislature.

One bill seeks a $20 million bond to be used to “make schools safer.” Yesterday I weighed in on that nonsense. All you need to do is simply trust your government. And how has that worked out for all of us so far?

A second bill, according to the Portland Press Herald, “…would set up a process for police to temporarily confiscate guns from a person whom a court has found to be a danger to the community.” Think about this for a moment. What could possibly go wrong? And do you want others more insane than you deciding whether or not you are a danger to “the” community? By whose standards will this claim of “danger” be based? This is fascism at its finest carried out and perpetuated by useless eater totalitarians. Just blindly, out of fear of government, cede all your rights away, is slavery in its purest form.

A third bill proposal, “…would seek to build community education programs to raise awareness of those who may be a danger to themselves or others.” Historically, the Vatican, and thus the infrastructure of the Catholic Church have always taught their followers to spy on other people and turn them in if they are not following the laws of their church. This proposal I see as no different.

Consider that this proposal would allow insane, brainwashed morons, to educate other brainwashed, insane morons how to recognize someone who is a “danger to themselves and others.” By someone’s standards, everyone can fit that description. Just look at the insanity that has prevailed since the presidential election. And, I must ask, who is mentally fit to educate others as to their own insanity? We have gone mad!!

And to further perpetuate the fascist nonsense by propping up and showing adoration for the mental health profession, a fourth bill will be considered that would give shrinks, with masters degrees or higher, access to loan forgiveness programs.

So the insane make the rules for the rest of us as to their industry’s standards of mental illness and mental normalcy, and Maine is considering propping up this industry that has proven to make us all even that much more insane, by paying off their debt so we can expect and eagerly await being forced to conform to the State’s standards of mental normalcy.

Smart! Real smart!

Share