May 28, 2023

To Stop Murders Make a Murder Law Criminals Will Obey


When Lawmakers Strengthen Laws Against Hunters and Do Worse Crimes and Get Away With It Themselves

George Smith writes to clarify a new anti-baiting law for deer. Under current circumstances, I do not favor hunting deer over bait, although, like bear management, I think the decision should be based on the need to more effectively control the population of deer, of which Maine does not have a problem with, and that decision should be left in the hands of the commissioner. Why in one instance the commissioner knows best and in another he doesn’t?

According to Smith, a new law,  An Act To Increase the Penalties for Hunting Deer over Bait, was passed in the Maine Legislature that upon a second offense of baiting deer a person’s privilege to purchase a hunting license is revoked for the remainder of that person’s life.

Isn’t this just a bit draconian? In what direction is this Maine Legislature headed? We learned recently of the Legislature passing a bill that directs greater punishment against hunters as a group than any other group or individual in Maine. That is unlawful, and yet it passed and appears as though I am the only one who sees the new law for what it is. Maybe that’s why the Legislature gets away with their fascism.

And now we see the liberal, progressive mindset, that believes tougher laws stop criminals…or is it something else? Perhaps this is part of the brainwashing rearing its ugly head of the brainwashed masses targeting hunting simply because they have been taught to dislike and disapprove of the activity and will do what they can, outwardly and covertly to end the practice.

But that’s just one aspect of totalitarianism run amok. When you consider that at least one of the lawmakers, who is part of the whole Maine Legislative body, committed the crime of threatening the president and displayed his true colors as a bigoted, hate-filled, filthy-mouthed pervert, walks away after offering some kind of fake apology. Why doesn’t he lose his privilege to serve his state and country for life? Who wants a filthy hate-monger representing them anyway? But he keeps his job and can vote on and craft draconian laws like the one we see here.

Evidently, Maine is no different than any other state. Lawmakers, like all politicians, realize at some point in their careers that they are above the law and that the laws they make as fascists, to please the totalitarians for their votes, do not pertain to them. And so, Maine, like so many other places, is headed in the wrong direction.

There once was a day when any law was crafted around the seriousness of the crime. In this case it appears that it is more serious to put out some food for a deer than it is to threaten the life of the president. And in the other case, hunters are to receive greater punishment than any other group or individual.

Somebody’s got their heads inserted deeply where the sun doesn’t shine. And evidently we like it!


Of Public, Common, And Private Property

Edition Used:
The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and
Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature
of Natural Law and on Luxury, edited and with an Introduction by Béla Kapossy and
Richard Whitmore (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008).
Author: Emer de Vattel
Editor: Béla Kapossy
Editor: Richard Whitmore

Chapter XX, ppgs 141, 142

Besides the eminent domain, the sovereignty gives a right of another nature over all public, common, and private property,—that is, the empire, or the right of command in all places of the country belonging to the nation. The supreme power extends to every thing that passes in the state, wherever it is transacted; and consequently the sovereign commands in all public places, on rivers, on highways, in deserts, &c. Every thing that happens there is subject to his authority.

In virtue of the same authority, the sovereign may make laws to regulate the manner in which common property is to be used,—as well the property of the nation at large, as that of distinct bodies or corporations. He cannot, indeed, take away their right from those who have a share in that property: but the care he ought to take of the public repose, and of the common advantage of the citizens, gives him doubtless a right to establish laws tending to this end, and consequently to regulate the manner in which things possessed in common are to be enjoyed. This affair might give room for abuses, and excite disturbances, which it is important to the state to prevent, and against which the prince is obliged to take just measures. Thus the sovereign may establish wise laws with respect to hunting and fishing,—forbid them in the seasons of propagation,—prohibit the use of certain nets, and of every destructive method, &c. But as it is only in the character of the common father, governor, and guardian of his people, that the sovereign has a right to make those laws, he ought never to lose sight of the ends which he is called upon to accomplish by enacting them: and if, upon those subjects, he makes any regulations with any other view than that of the public welfare, he abuses his power.

A corporation, as well as every other proprietor, has a right to alienate and mortgage its property: but the present members ought never to lose sight of the destination of that joint property, nor dispose of it otherwise than for the advantage of the body, or in cases of necessity. If they alienate it with any other view, they abuse their power, and transgress against the duty they owe to their own corporation and their posterity; and the prince, in quality of common father, has a right to oppose the measure. Besides, the interest of the state requires that the property of corporations be not squandered away;—which gives the prince, intrusted with the care of watching over the public safety, a new right to prevent the alienation of such property. It is then very proper to ordain in a state, that the alienation of the property of corporations should be invalid, without the consent of the superior powers. And indeed the civil law, in this respect, gives to corporations the rights of minors. But this is strictly no more than a civil law; and the opinion of those who make the law of nature alone a sufficient authority to take from a corporation the power of alienating their property without the consent of the sovereign, appears to me to be void of foundation, and contrary to the notion of property. A corporation, it is true, may have received property either from their predecessors, or from any other persons, with a clause that disables them from alienating it: but in this case they have only the perpetual use of it, not the entire andfree property. If any of their property was solely given for the preservation of the body, it is evident that the corporation has not a right to alienate it, except in a case of extreme necessity:—and whatever property they may have received from the sovereign, is presumed to be of that nature.

All the members of a corporation have an equal right to the use of its common property. But, respecting the manner of enjoying it, the body of the corporation may make such regulations as they think proper, provided that those regulations be not inconsistent with that equality which ought to be preserved in a communion of property. Thus a corporation may determine the use of a common forest or pasture, either allowing it to all the members according to their wants, or allotting to each an equal share; but they have not a right to exclude any one of the number, or to make a distinction to his disadvantage by assigning him a less share than that of the others.

All the members of a body having an equal right to its common property, each individual ought so to manage in taking advantage of it, as not in any wise to injure the common use. According to this rule, an individual is not permitted to construct upon any river that is public property, any work capable of rendering it less convenient for the use of every one else, as erecting mills, making a trench to turn the water upon his own lands, &c. If he attempts it, he arrogates to himself a private right, derogatory to the common right of the public.


Bill Whittle: Is Hillary Guilty?

Some of what Whittle says is true. The problem is, most people haven’t a clue as to what parts of what he says are true and what are false. Some of the truth he speaks is hidden behind the manner in which he speaks, continuing to direct the people to believe things that are not true by using bits of truth. This the result of ignorance and complacency.

Hillary broke the laws in which the rest of us are expected to obey. She, and the rest in Washington, don’t have to obey those laws, unless, of course, it becomes a convenient way to rid someone not willing to play the game. Some get assassinated.


Shadow Boxing and the Fake Ridicule of Obama’s Line-Drawing in the Sand

Why can’t people see through this crap?

Remember when President Obama drew an imaginary red line in which Media reported was meant to warn Syria that if they used chemical weapons, the U.S. might issue a “military response.” Supposedly Syria did and Obama didn’t… do anything. The Republicans took the opportunity to take cheap shots at the president. The news was full of the nonsense. It was a great opportunity for both parties to mark their territories, like dogs on a backyard fence, and to convince the ignorant masses that one side is good and the other side is bad – and let’s further prop that up with some serious hating on somebody.

We move ahead about 2 1/2 years and we find President Obama signing a Paris agreement, on the fake Earth Day, in which he promises to steal more and more of American’s money to use to bribe other countries to support the fake “Climate Change” amalgamation. Can’t we all just get along…and keep giving to the Cause?

According to “The New American,” they claim that because of a law signed during Bill Clinton’s era, it is illegal for Obama to fund any part of implementing the Paris climate agreement, because The State of Palestine is not recognized by the U.S. as a state and member of the United Nations….or something. – “Thanks to a Clinton-era statute and an obscure vote last month by the United Nations, federal law now officially makes it illegal for the Obama administration to send a single penny of your money to the UN climate bureaucracy.”

Isn’t that nice?

But not so fast. According to the same article, Obama was a criminal because he gave a half-billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to fascist Climate Change dictators within the United Nations. “Among the UN agencies affected will be the giant slush fund for dictators run by dictators’ representatives known as the Green Climate Fund, which Obama lawlessly gave $500 million to in defiance of Congress after illegitimately pledging billions during a trip to Australia.”

So, let’s get this straight. According to this information, President Obama carried out an act that certain republican members (perhaps we should name them the Bowry Boys) of Congress say was, “illegal on multiple accounts,” and yet, one has to ask, what did this same group of mouthy republican Congressmen do about Obama’s supposed illegal action?

Supposedly, Obama’s lawyers, noted as “Obama’s legions of U.S. taxpayer-funded lawyers” declared that it was not illegal to spend 500 million taxpayer dollars to fund Climate Change dictators at the U.N.

The group of republican Congressmen warned Obama that he better not do something like that again, or else…..(here is where a “red line” can be drawn.) And if that doesn’t scare the president enough, weeeellllll, these lying, gutless politicians really let Obama have it by writing a letter, described as a, “stake through the heart of the UN’s “climate” regime.” – “The American people must understand the dynamics and the hollow promises of Paris Agreement supporters, lest they allow these meaningless agreements to gain credibility and cause further damage [to](sic) the American economy and sovereignty.”

By God that ought ta just about scare the living crud right out of anybody! The letter further “threatened” that a signed “pseudo-treaty has no force or validity.” Last time I checked, whatever Obama or any president before him signed as a “treaty” will have no “force or validity” unless and until the United States Senate ratifies a formal treaty.

It appears that this muscled-up group of blowhard idiots have drawn at least two “Red Lines” with not the courage to do anything about it. But is it actually courage they are lacking? I think not. What they are lacking is nothing really. Perhaps a few lessons on how to better lie to the American people – or am I just catching on quicker – to make them think the republicans have the answer? They are allowed to do that until it’s the democrats turn to lie when a republican president is making up his own laws and defying (wink, wink) Congress.

If, as this group of hacks claim, President Obama violated the law by sending $500 million to the U.N. for Climate Change Dictators, then it is their duty to actually do something about it. I heard someone on TV (Fox News – another wink, wink) just this morning say the United States was a nation of laws. Therefore, it must be so.

So, either the Bowry Boys are slimy, useless, slugs, or they actually want the money to go to the U.N., or it really isn’t against the law (laws don’t matter) – or any combination of these three issues.

Doesn’t one then have to ask, if Obama and his lawyers thought and acted as though giving that half-billion to the U.N. was not illegal, why then do these mental-midget, criminal republicans think Obama and his “legion of lawyers” is going to avoid stepping over that “red line” and not send any funding to prop up the Paris agreement?


Hunters in Maine should be aware of a few new laws that go into effect January 1, 2016

No Hunting Age Minimum.  As of January 1, 2016, any hunter under the age of 16 may purchase a junior hunting license and hunt. Hunters under the age of 10 must be in the presence of, and under the effective control of, an adult supervisor who remains at all times within 20 feet of the hunter. Hunters from 10-15 years of age must be in the presence of and under the effective control of an adult supervisor. The adult supervisor of the junior hunter must hold, or have held, a valid adult hunting license or have successfully completed a hunter safety course.
Increased opportunity for apprentice hunters. Additionally, this law increases the number of times a person may hold an apprentice hunter license from twice to 5 times before becoming ineligible to purchase the license.

Click to view the full language of P.L.C. 136An Act To Eliminate the Minimum Age Requirement for a Junior Hunting License and Increase the Number of Times a Person May Hold an Apprentice Hunter License.

Species Management Education Fund – License Fee Increase. This law increases hunting and trapping license fees by $1 and directs IFW to use that revenue to educate the public on the management of game species. The hunting license fees will increase January 1, 2016 and the trapping license fees will increase July 1, 2016 to coincide with the annual license expiration dates. This new law also requires that the IFW Commissioner convenes a stakeholder group to develop recommendations for a 5 year public outreach campaign on IFW’s efforts to manage game species, including a plan for how money in the Species Management Education Fund is to be used. The Commissioner shall report on the recommendations of the stakeholder group, including any suggested legislation to the IFW Committee by February 1, 2016.  The IFW Committee may report out a bill in the 2nd Regular Session of the 127th in 2016.

Click to view the full language of P.L.C. 245An Act To Expand Public Opportunities for Wildlife Management Education.

Additional Opportunity for Junior Hunters Who Turn 16. A junior license holder who turns 16 may hunt with that junior license for the remainder of the year, but must complete a hunter safety course prior to hunting without adult supervision. BeginningJanuary 1, 2016, the law will allow holders of junior hunting licenses, after they turn 16 years of age, to also hunt pheasants and migratory waterfowl, and to hunt with a bow and arrow for the remainder of the calendar year for which their licenses are issued without having to purchase pheasant permits, migratory waterfowl permits or archery hunting licenses. Reminder: Anyone 16 and older must purchase a Federal migratory bird hunting stamp even if they are continuing to hunt with a junior hunting license.

Click to view the full language of P.L.C. 281An Act To Clarify and Simplify the Licensing and Registration Provisions of the Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Laws.

Maine’s hunting laws are available online at

CLICK HERE for the 2016 hunting seasons and bag and possession limits.


Kaine’s Gun Control Bill Is A Backdoor Ban On Private Sales

Kaine’s proposed law, entitled the “Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act,” places a criminal federal liability on anyone who transfers a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one by federal law, according to a fact sheet provided by Kaine’s office. Under current law, only federal firearms licensees (FFLs) are criminally liable if they sell a gun to a prohibited individual. Kaine’s law would extend that criminal liability to private individuals as well.

Source: Kaine’s Gun Control Bill Is A Backdoor Ban On Private Sales


Why More Gun Control Laws Won’t Help

This is important because, in response to high-profile shootings, gun control advocates always recur to a few longstanding proposals–none of which have anything to do with actually reducing the rate of gun violence. A favorite liberal chestnut is “universal background checks.” Background checks already must be run by all licensed firearms dealers; making them universal means requiring individuals who sell a firearm to a friend or relative, etc., to run a background check first. The problem is that criminals get guns from fellow gang members and other non-law abiding friends and acquaintances. These people are not going to run background checks, no matter what federal law provides.

Source: Why More Gun Control Laws Won’t Help | Power Line


Removing Citizens’ Ballot Initiative For Wildlife Management is Not Wrong

The Bangor Daily News editorial staff made some good and sound points about alternatives to changing the process involved with gathering signatures and getting a proposal put onto the ballot for voters to decide. However, the staff made two statements that I think need clearing up and providing a better and more accurate explanation.

To be forthcoming, I have stated in the past that I hold some reluctance in a flat removal of the right of citizens to petition the state and the referendum process. In this article, it makes reference to a proposed bill, LD1228, that would amend the signature gathering process for ballot initiatives. I haven’t finished a thorough examination of this proposal, but on the surface it appears to be a sound proposal.

However, I do think there are instances in which an exemption from the ballot initiative process may be necessary. The Bangor Daily News states: “…taking away the citizen initiative when it comes to hunting and fishing laws, or any other area of law, is wrong.” I do not agree. “Any other area of law,” is not specific to hunting and fishing laws, which, in and of itself, is an inaccurate labeling of what bill proposals that exist are attempting to do.

Hunting and fishing laws, i.e. rules, are set by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). The Legislature can amend those laws/rules and/or force the department to do things it might not think is in the best interest of wildlife management. In the existing format, there are many opportunities for Maine voters to participate in the rule-making process. This is the same throughout all law making proposals, with or without the referendum process.

In my mind, this really isn’t the issue. The issue is that wildlife management, including fish and game management, is a scientific process and should be a scientific process driven by goals set and established as a complimentary effort between the wildlife department and voters. Science should be the determining factor. It is my opinion that when MDIFW began putting too much emphasis on what social impacts their scientific decisions had, proper and responsible wildlife management took a back seat to social pressures, many coming from special interest groups. This result is far worse than any perceived fallout from eliminating a ballot initiative.

For this reason, we may be looking at a terrific example of why an exemption from the petitioning of the state government to change it’s wildlife management plans, should be seriously and honestly considered.

The second issue is directly connected to the first. The Bangor Daily News called a potential law to limit ballot initiatives on issues pertaining to fish and wildlife management as “draconian.” When this issue is viewed from a totalitarian perspective of forcing lifestyles onto others, I can understand why the newspaper, with their history, would consider this exemption as draconian. It appears the newspaper’s importance is weighted toward socialistic issues rather than science.

I hate laws in general because all laws limit and steal away my rights and my God-given right to self-determination. Playing within the rules, what is good for the goose is most often good for the gander.

And just one more thing. The editorial states that, “Twenty-four states allow citizen-generated initiatives on the ballot.” Why didn’t the report state that 26 do not? More than half do not provide for citizen-generated initiatives. Clearly there are other means of ensuring that all citizens can be heard, or made to think they are heard, other than the current and very expensive process Maine now has.

Changes in this process should be forthcoming.


A Bill To Change Signature Gathering Process for Referendums

Hot off the latest vote by anti human groups to ban all things normal, a bill is being proposed in the Maine Legislature that would change the process of how signatures are gathered in order to petition the state to get placement of referendum questions on the ballot. At issue, for some, is the so-called loophole that allows for out-of-state persons to effectively gather signatures, even though Maine law says signature gatherers must be Maine residents.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine is supporting the bill. Executive director David Trahan says, “Just the fact that any group in the world could come in and cut a check and get their issue on the ballot,” Trahan said, “that should send a chill down everyone’s back in the state of Maine.”

According to an article in the Central Maine edition of the Morning Sentinel, the text of the bill, not yet released, would:

…clarify state law to say only Mainers can ask for signatures during citizen initiative and people’s veto drives, processes that allow citizens to make and repeal laws, respectively.

It would also make paid signature-gatherers for initiatives register with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. While gathering signatures, they would have to wear a badge that says their name, residence and who’s paying them. They would also have to tell the state what they’re paid and how many signatures they gather. Violating the new provisions would be a misdemeanor crime.

Some opposed to the bill say it isn’t necessary and tramples on the First Amendment.

Secretary of State, Matt Dunlop, says that he, “…don’t think there’s anything wrong with transparency.”

The difficulty, most always, with bill proposals to change and/or increase governmental regulation is all too often people fail to realize that laws created swing in both directions and place the same limits on everyone. While a bill today might seem to solve a problem of today, what happens tomorrow when the tide turns?

As with the proposals that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) should not be allowed to actively support or oppose citizen referendums, calling for transparency should be welcomed but a ban should not. Voters must know a department’s position and why. And yes, that door swings in two directions also.

I understand the call for preventing entities from outside the state from taking over the processes and priorities of the Maine people. An opponent of this bill proposal, a person who worked to collect signatures for the late bear referendum, called the bill, “a cowardly way to attack the initiative process.” He further explained that it was his belief that those who signed the petitions were more important than the process and that added restrictions drives up the cost of placing citizen initiatives on the ballot.

I’m not sure I would go so far as to call the bill proposal cowardly, as there is merit in claiming that the signature is more important than the process, providing that the process is legal and ethical and the gathering of signatures actually is a reflection of the citizenry as a whole.

When professional signature gatherers are paid, sometimes handsomely, to garner signatures, what happens to the process of approaching voters for their interest in the issue, especially if being paid an amount for each signature retrieved? There’s a good chance that the signatures do not represent the citizenry as a whole. Wasn’t the establishment of gathering signatures in the amount of a percentage of the last election intended to be a reflection of issues that would appear important enough to the people of Maine or any other state, to place a ballot initiative?

When signature gathering becomes a matter of enough funding to pay enough people ample money to harvest signatures, isn’t this a bastardization of the Initiative process? Can we then, with a straight face, say that the signature is more important than the process?

We might draw two examples that could provide reasonable substantiation of those wishing to change the process. Twice the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) brought a referendum against bear hunting and trapping to Maine – 2004 and 2014. Twice that referendum was defeated but not until after hours and hours of time and gobs of money were spent by both sides. After ten years of debates about bears and bear management, HSUS, able to buy the necessary number of signatures got their initiative on the ballot. Think of the large expenditures, on both sides and for what purpose? Evidently right now that purpose is a couple of proposals to change the laws in which both sides think it might “better the process”, perhaps better explained as increasing their chances of winning next time.

This has become part of the political process whether we like it or not. As with the bear referendum and the debates we were all subjected to, once again voters are being subjected to the same process, both sides wishing to make tougher laws. And when tougher laws are enacted, the people lose.

The people ALWAYS lose!