September 24, 2017

Trust Your Elected Government Representative?

AHEM!

An op-ed found on the Maine Wire, says that making laws through the referendum process is not a good way to do it, and lists some of the reasons why this might be so. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t offer a precise solution but does intimate that placing trust in the representatives that got elected as being the best solution. “When we elect lawmakers, we expect them to weigh various proposals. Recognizing that a first draft isn’t always the best, we empower the Legislature to amend bills, sanding off rough edges and trying to fashion the best solution to the problem at hand. They don’t — or at least, shouldn’t — capitulate to an advocacy group simply because that group has a lot of money or yells the loudest.”

From my perspective, the entire process of electing representatives and making laws is flawed and corrupt. The author’s perspective also appears a bit idealistic and probably is rooted in his own connections to the political system. However, to think that wealthy political influencers can control the law making process through the referendum process and such corruption is immune via the legislative process is naive. It’s the only thing that drives all laws in this country.

A troubling part of this process is when political activists begin demanding changes to how the system works when things aren’t going their way or they are feeling threatened. Often overlooked in the emotional action and reaction is that changes to processes work in all directions and often comes round and bites you on the backside.

To suggest doing away with the referendum process, relying solely on elected officials, is both foolish and dangerous. Doing so would further eliminate the right of people to petition the government. Is that what we really want? When’s the last time you saw an elected politician refuse to “go along to get along” in order to carry out the majority wishes of his or her constituency?

It seems in Maine over the past few years, a lot of noise has arisen about the signature gathering process to get referendums onto a ballot. And now we hear suggestions that the process is a terrible way of making laws. Isn’t the real problem a matter of finding a way to keep the referendum process for Maine, or any other state, within the political processes of that state, as well as discovering, somehow, ways to control the flow of money?

Government is dangerous enough without handing them another free pass to disregard the wishes of the voters. Unfortunately, we live in a Socio-Democratic society where all it takes is 51% of the people to force the rest to live by their rules. This may be a terrible political system to live under but I assure you that having no recourse than to simply allow government officials to dictate terms more than they already do, is an even worse suggestion as a possible solution.

Share

Why Your Belief of Entitlement to Attack my Heritage?

upsidebackwards2

Over the past several weeks, I have read tons of information about Michael Bloomberg and his upcoming attempt to disarm Maine citizens. Of course Bloomberg, who surely fits the description of being a fascist, forcing others to comply with and adhere to his “authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.” We’ve seen this in play for a long time now, especially when he was mayor of Rome of the West, New York City, telling people what they could and couldn’t eat, etc.

But it surely doesn’t stop with Michael Bloomberg. This orchestrated effort to change everything that was good to bad, and bad to good, began a long time ago. It is now only at a point where it is so blatant and common that we see it everyday. Along with this, the sheep are accustomed to being led to the slaughter and they like it.

I grew up in Maine and lived there full time for nearly 50 years. I now divide my time between Maine and Florida. During the 50 years in Maine, I can never recall a time when I or the people that I knew, spent any time trying to change people from living the lifestyle they chose or what was an embedded part of their heritage.

Yes, we used to laugh and make lots of jokes about “flatlanders” from “away” but seldom, if ever, did the Maine residents try to stop these people from moving to the Pine Tree State or to force them to change their lifestyle and adopt theirs. I often marveled at those “from away” saying they hated where they came from and loved Maine, and yet, upon arrival, worked diligently to make their new community just like where they came from and hated. It made little sense.

Yesterday, in my pile of reading material, I recall reading one author as saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that Michael Bloomberg’s ballot initiative, and what it will accomplish, is a direct attack on the deeply seeded Maine traditional heritage of gun ownership and the freedoms enjoyed by those people – which is a true statement in my opinion.

Why then, during my first 50 years in Maine, I never once attacked another person for their choice of lifestyle, expecting only to be treated the same, and today, people like me and millions of others, are being steamrolled by disgusting fascists like Michael Bloomberg? It is one of the serious downfalls of what Americans ignorantly love to lay claim to – Democracy. As is often described, democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what’s for lunch.

Democracy is mostly rotten to the core. It is not democracy. It is a rigged system in which money and corruption controls everything, including the people. That control has created a society so blinded that they willing go about promoting their own destruction. They have been brainwashed to believe they are entitled to attack and destroy anyone and anything that does not fall in line with THEIR lifestyle, bred into them from birth by leftist progressives.

I would suppose that I, and others like me, have to accept a certain degree of responsibility for what has happened. As I have lived my life, not sticking my nose into other people’s business, the mistake I made was to assume that others were raised the same way. But now it’s too late. We are embroiled in a life of progressivism, where everything is upside-down and backwards, where everything once good is bad and the bad things have become good.

It has been said that success breeds complacency, which in turn breeds failure. I think there’s more to it than that.

However;

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

Text of Maine Ballot Initiative to Require Background Checks on all Gun Sales

Below is a link to fascist, idiot Michael Bloomberg’s ballot initiative that will be up for a vote in the upcoming November election. As you can see, if you go look, criminal fascists like Bloomberg pay big money in order to write laws and proposals for laws in language the common man cannot understand…all for a purpose. When laws like this are passed, ignorant voters only bother to read what it written on the ballot – all written in a fashion that sounds really good. This is common and as such our own laziness and ignorance results in finding us all living as slaves in a fascist/totalitarian/police state. But we must like it.

Here’s a link to the ballot proposal and the complete text of the proposed law that would go into effect in 2017.

Here’s a link to one man’s idea of what he thinks the law says.

And another link to another man’s opinion of what this law would mean.

Note: One of my readers sent me an email expressing their concerns over this proposed law:

Tom,  [My wife] and I have been married nearly 40 years.  She has hunted with me almost all that time.  She uses my Remington 740A that my parents gave me when I was less than 15 years old.  It is still my rifle but we could run into all sorts of problems with her using the rifle (or being alone with it) if this guy is correct in his reckoning. [meaning the guy who wrote the Bangor News article]  Or would all the problems just go away if I registered my weapons as the next (unspoken) step in the plan to disarm us proposes.  What would happen in a hunting camp with only a couple of guys there but with 3 -5 others away hunting and having left some back-up guns at the camp?

BloombergArmedGuards

Share

HSUS Declares Maine Bear Hunting a Target in 2016

Press Release from the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

Just months after a resounding defeat by Maine voters, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has announced plans to bring yet another ballot issue on bear hunting back to Maine.

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, lawyers for HSUS and the state of Maine were in court to debate the lawsuit brought by HSUS against the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. That suit sought to stop the state’s wildlife experts from explaining to voters the true dangers of HSUS’s bear hunting ban. Despite an overwhelming decision by Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler that sided with the state’s right to provide comments, HSUS continues to pursue a legal challenge.

As part of the discussions about the pending litigation, an attorney for HSUS, Rachel Wertheimer, advised the court that they will again put the question on the 2016 ballot, and will be filing the initial paperwork soon.

“I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that these guys will stop at nothing to pursue their radical, anti-hunting agenda,” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “They spent more than $2.5 million dollars trying to buy an election. When it was clear they were about to lose, they sued the state to prevent the true experts from explaining the dangers of the issue to voters. And now they are making it crystal clear that they do not respect the will of the voters – who have twice sent HSUS and their allies packing.”

In November, voters rejected the bear hunting ban (Question 1) by a 53.6 to 46.3 percent margin, just as they did in 2004 – the last time HSUS brought the issue to Maine.

“How many times are we going to have to debate this? They’ve lost before the legislature, they’ve lost at the ballot box, and they’ve lost in the courts,” Pinizzotto continued. “This is nothing more than a direct look straight into the heart of the anti-hunting movement, a movement that will obviously stop at nothing to accomplish their agenda.”

Share