September 16, 2019

Gun Laws: Creeping Toward Fascist Rule

FascesPresident Barack H. Obama is presently meeting with his legal advisers to examine how he can “legally” erode the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, through Executive Action. Because of a listless society and a corrupt Congress, providing for presidents, current and past, to write laws via a method of bypassing Congress, we are headed toward dictatorial, fascist rule…inch by inch. Historically, this has happened before. We live in dangerous times, with many reasons to fear, such usurpation is on our doorstep.

While it may be already too late, a first step necessary to stop the bleeding is to recognize where the blood is coming from and how the injury happened.

Here is a brief examination of one example of how it happened and a comparative look at what’s happening today. Perhaps it’s time to stop denying truth and Wake Up, America!

wake up america

There is real danger in America’s bent to make everything politically correct. The term itself, political correctness, is representative of American culture today in that we find misleading or poor representative terms and phrases to give something title instead of calling it what it is. In this case, political correctness is nothing more than censorship. To the intelligent, censorship is a loss of our right to free speech.

Censorship, is a taking away of the rights of free men. All laws are, to some degree, the taking away of the rights of free men. We have been taught to believe that all laws are proper and necessary for the protection of a free society. This is an oxymoron of epic proportions – a disease with seemingly no cure. We see it in several parts of our political and societal existence – believing we are creating a cure for a problem only to discover the created cure exacerbates the problem.

Political Correctness has more far-reaching dangers than most realize. In a post-normal society, like that of the United States, history is being repeated, not only because it is not being taught, or not being taught honestly, but it cannot be taught accurately because history has been hijacked, the end result, some of which is, political correctness.

The censorship of free speech, i.e. political correctness, forces all of us to teach half-truths in history, while often failing to address the root causes of prominent social, economic and political issues. Therefore, there is no learning process because history is watered down, while sinister processes ensure no discussion of truthful matters perpetuates the valuable lessons that should be learned from historic events. Perhaps none is more evident than modern speech and censorship when attempting to discuss the results of fascist rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The most prominent of political correctness can be seen whenever anyone attempts to make any kind of correlation with current events and those of Hitler. Even if some of us have learned from history, isn’t the censorship a tool to cover up the horrors of fascist rule? Perhaps the censorship in this instance is a planned event. I happen to think it is. For those seeking ultimate power and control over all people and resources, nothing would be more detrimental to that agenda than bringing to review the actual historic accounts of repressive, murderous regimes like Hitler’s.

Before Hitler gained power in Germany, certain events took place that laid the groundwork for, not only the elevation of the Hitler regime to political prominence, but what was to take place after that power was ceded away from the socialist-democratic government of Germany.

Nearly every American is willing to cede his/her rights because they have been bred to believe it is necessary for safety, the rule of law and national security, while at the same time willing to blindly follow their government, wishing never to believe their government would ever resort to Fascism and/or dictatorial reign. By giving away those rights, it places the control of that part of you into the hands of a centralized government. History should have taught us that the bigger and stronger a centralized government becomes, the smaller our freedoms and liberties become. Yet, we follow the wrong path.

As such, a majority of Americans are convinced that something called “reasonable gun control laws” are necessary for various reasons and something that fits into a progressive society. Such benign behavior has resulted in the murder of millions of people throughout the world.

We must, therefore, compare and correlate what led up to the takeover of the Hitler Regime in Germany and events taking place in America today. The comparisons are so similar, one would have to question whether or not the same evil that brought about the disarming of Germany and the Holocaust is in play in the United States today. In history we read such things that took place in Germany in the early 1900s that clearly set the stage for Hitler’s fascist rule. These events read as current events in the U.S.

Prior to the Hitler Regime, Germany consisted of independent states, with the liberty to create their own laws, similar to the way the U.S. once was. History reveals that many of these states would begin campaigns to disarm feared political opponents and those who might threaten the existing governments. This fear was of a “communist” take over perpetuated by those with political influence. This eventually led to laws aimed at disarming the citizenry.

It seemed that in Germany, a country that once allowed for the private possession of weapons, not that much unlike those of the United States, a new regime of social democrats began an effort to limit the right to keep and bear arms, based on the fear that communists, who might be able to buy and possess arms, would become a threat to the ruling party. History should have taught us that a fearful society is a society ripe for the picking.

Even prior to the 1928 enactment of the Weimar Republic, the chaos that existed in Germany led to the passage of  “the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession). This gun control law demanded the immediate surrender to the central government of all weapons and ammunition. Failure to do so would lead to imprisonment.

This law passed because of the fear generated that another war might start if guns and ammunition were not controlled. This law was later repealed and replaced with different gun laws that, on the surface, appeared more benign, but would ultimately lead to the easy pickings by a fascist regime.

These draconian gun laws were responsible for the onset of semi-governmental groups of thugs and those who took it upon themselves to be the enforcers of new gun regulations. Unfortunately, at least one of these groups was the foundation of the move in Germany to National Socialism.

In 1920, the Law on the Disarmament of the People passed. This law gave a Reichskommissar the authority to decided which guns were “military” in style – perhaps better understood by Americans to define an “assault weapon,” – and who could and could not buy or possess.

By 1928 and the rule of the Weimar Republic, it was decided to pass a “comprehensive” gun law – Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law required a license for anyone interested in making, assembling or repairing guns and ammunition and the sale thereof. In addition, the same law prohibited any selling of arms and ammo at fairs, shooting competitions or related events.

Anyone wishing to own a weapon, now had to apply for a license. Those wishing to carry a firearm, had to obtain another license. All of these regulations certainly should be familiar to most Americans. If they don’t already exist, totalitarians continue to demand exactly what the German national socialists were demanding.

But the laws didn’t stop at licensing. Authority was given to the Reichskommissar to make sure that a license was given only to “persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.” (Background checks to show you are not listed on some fake “domestic terror watchlist,” had psychiatric treatment or some other “condition” left up to the discretion of a man or panel of men.) In certain cases of undesirable classes of people, a right to own and/or carry a gun was automatically denied.

If you were legally licensed, there were limits as to how many guns and how much ammunition you could have on hand. These limitations varied depending upon what the “proving a need” involved. Hunting provided guns of certain types different than target shooters. Hunters had to buy a license to hunt and that license provided further gun and ammunition regulations that were strictly enforced. And remember, these licenses were issued to only those the government deemed completely trustworthy and were not known to be in opposition to the central government, later the Nazis.

Eventually, it became illegal to manufacture any weapon that could be, “rapid disassembly beyond the generally usual extent for hunting and sporting purposes.” (more assault weapons to be banned)

Prison terms were established for violation of these laws, including laws that required immediate notification to authorities in the event that someone inherited a gun or ammunition.

The Reichskommissar at the time, Kuenzer, in an explanation of the need to implement the new gun regulations, explains: “The law necessitated long consultations in the Reichsrat [legislative assembly] because it interferes strongly with the police authority of the Länder [states].”

Included in this “comprehensive” gun law, was the prohibition of individual states to make any gun laws on their own. All states were now subject to the wishes and whims of gun control of the central government.

Reichskommissar Kuenzer explained the reason it was necessary to implement a “comprehensive” (reasonable) gun law: “The purpose and goal of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed in this area. The difficult task was to find the appropriate limits between this necessity of the state on the one hand and the important interests of the weapons industry that was employing a large number of workers and had been heavily damaged through the peace treaty, the interests of the legal sporting industry, and the personal freedom of the individual.”

Now that gun manufacturing was completely controlled by the central government, all guns manufactured commercially had to be stamped with the name of the company that made it, or sold it; “in the interest of solving criminal acts committed with firearms.” 

All of these “reasonable” gun regulations should sound very familiar to Americans. We have listened to the demands of totalitarians for more gun control, while voicing all the same claims as those in Germany 100 years ago. Germans, after World War I, lived in fear and chaos, much because the government and other political factions, pounded the fear of communism into the people’s brains. Eventually they believed that it was necessary to give up their rights if it would protect them from the communists.

In America today, we have our government pounding into our heads fear of terrorism from “radicalized Muslims,” and other events like mass shootings. Now that terror attacks, by “radical Muslims” have occurred in this country, the centralized government is demanding more gun restrictions, convincing more and more people that with stricter laws, terrorists will not be able to inflict harm on the people. It seems that this was the same reasoning that Reichskommissar Kuenzer used in his explanation to the German people.

The above historic synopsis of German gun rights, all happened BEFORE the Hitler Regime took control. There is no doubt these actions set the stage for fascist rule.

We know some of what Hitler did. We know that he completed the gun grab, taking all guns away from anybody he did not want to have them. It should be noted that Hitler, shortly after taking power, basically suspended the German Constitution and gave himself the authority to write and implement laws, without the authority or approval of the Reichsrat.

Examination of the events in the United States reveals that the U.S. Constitution has, for the most part, been suspended. Many laws are written by Congress and signed by the president that do not conform to the constitution. In addition, all actions, whether legal or not, carried out without opposition, sets precedent and therefore becomes law by default. This same shameful act happens in the Courts. With each administration “policy” is established. Once again, history, unlearned, reveals that “policy” becomes the law of the land by unchallenged precedent.

When Hitler first came to office, he worked with his administration and departments, to implement his Third Reich ideology. As we have learned, eventually he was given the power to write any laws he wanted. In America today, we now see the growing, illegal act of presidents writing their own laws through “executive actions.” The longer this goes unchallenged, the more Americans run the risk of dictatorial rule as we saw with Hitler.

Over 100 years ago, people didn’t believe anyone or any government as dark and sinister as the Hitler Regime could attain power into any country. Even when Hitler was carrying out his genocide, Americans, and much of the rest of the world denied it was happening. Where did that denial lead us?

Today, we live with the same denials. We go about our business believing that any gun laws are mostly benign and that any “reasonable” gun laws are done for the safety of the people and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. History proves this never happens. History proves that disarming the people, leads to Fascism.

Political Correctness results in efforts to prohibit free speech about Hitler and the most effort goes into finding ways to block any discussions that make comparisons of Hitler with anyone or anything in America today. The denial and repression of truth will lead to death.

 

Share

Bernie’s Magic Beans

MagicTrees

Share

Stupid Is As Stupid Sees

BSanders

Share

Socialist Meat Puppet

SocialistMeatPuppet

Share

Asteroid Watching

Which direction you go will depend on your party. The Democrats will argue for more carbon controls, more immigration, Single Payer, more deals with foreign dictators, etc. The Republicans will argue for more GOP Senators and Congressmen to be elected to Capitol Hill — after which they will vote for more carbon controls, more immigration, Single Payer, more deals with foreign dictators, etc.

Each side will assert that the problem is that we haven’t gone far enough; therefore the solution to all problems is to go a little further yet: one more donation, one more grant of power to bring final victory. Which of course won’t happen any more than the promotional mailers which proclaim you’ve been selected to enter a narrowing group of lottery candidates will pay off, if you just buy one more ticket, one more time.

Source: Asteroid Watching | Belmont Club

Share

Minnesota: Why a Deer Management Audit Will Prove Nothing

DoeDeerYesterday I posted a link to a news article from Minnesota where it appears enough hunters pestered the state’s legislature long enough to prompt them to cave in to an audit on how the fish and game department there makes decisions pertaining to deer management.

In the article that I linked to, a few things were stated that should be red flags for those who exerted enough effort to get the legislature to act. I wonder if others can see these flags.

It is my belief, based only on the information that can be taken from this news article, that any audit, as it appears will happen, is designed for failure before it starts. Here’s why.

First, is that this call for an audit of how the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), is now being prompted by “government-as-usual.” Government is usual and does little for the people or their concerns. Aside from the fact that members of this government know nothing about deer management, how can they conduct an honest assessment to determine if there actually exist problems within the MDNR’s management plans? Which brings me to the other issues.

The article states the following:

Specifically, the audit will likely examine the following questions:

— How does DNR estimate and monitor Minnesota’s deer population, and how do these methods compare with other estimation and monitoring approaches?

— How does DNR establish the state’s deer population goals, and how does this compare with methods used by other states?

— To what extent do DNR’s deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests?(emphasis added)

If we look at the issue of “how do these methods compare with other states,” the assumption is being made here that “other states” do it right. Do they? Isn’t this an example of blind faith in a system designed for outcome-based wildlife management goals from others with little or no interest, and sometimes outright opposition to, managing deer for surplus harvest, i.e the interests of hunters?

One has to have their head buried in the sand to not see the evolution of what once was fish and game management to what is collectively, through central control, labeled department of natural resources – removing any and all reference to “game.”

All fish and wildlife/natural resource departments today are heavily infiltrated with biologists, administrators and wildlife managers trained to think beyond the normal paradigm of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It has been openly stated that their goal is to change the way America approaches fish and wildlife management. Therefore, today, most all fish and wildlife departments have devised deer management plans that do not necessary manage for hunters surplus harvest but to manage deer according to the whims of social demands.

This is revealed to us in the third part of what the article states as something that will be specifically looked at with this audit: “…deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests.”

Deer management is a scientific endeavor and should not be, nor should it have ever become, a means of performing a balancing act between social entity’s demands with varying personal ideologies and what science should be dictating.

However, even the science has changed. It is what is now referred to as post-normal and by some as romance biology. Disguised as science, the demands of socialists, through central command, have taken over fish and game management. While hunters still fund the process, socialists get their demands met and the hunters, all to often, do not.

What Minnesota is looking at, is a government bureaucracy, that knows nothing about deer management, seeking comparisons of other government bureaucracies that are all cut from the same cloth. In addition, it appears as though any conclusions that might come out of such an audit will be mostly influenced by the demands of social groups and little to do with science or American heritage and tradition.

In short, it appears to me that the government is placating the hunters because they already know the result of any audit will be only what they desire it to be. Hunters in Minnesota should not get their hopes up very high. While we should all congratulate the hunters for their efforts to at least rattle the cages of law makers, most of whom believe themselves to be a cut above everybody else, it is too bad that included in this demand for an audit wasn’t the desire to seek answers for what is good for the hunting heritage of Minnesota and not how Minnesota looks in comparison to other states.

Share

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

“Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Demanding Regulation and Enforcement

LoggingIt’s easy isn’t it? This American society has become so manipulated and brainwashed that we, without any thought, demand that “there ought to be a law,” also known as regulation and enforcement. It shouldn’t be so easy and isn’t when the demands for regulation and enforcement hit directly home. Odd how selfish people are when it comes to playing with other peoples’ liberties, property and rights while attempting to protect their own. Because we’ve been bred and molded into non thinkers, we fail miserably in finding understanding as to the consequences of demanding regulation and enforcement. We somehow believe demanding of others’ livelihoods is good for ourselves. Have we that right?

Here’s an example. In a recent editorial in a Maine newspaper Online, a writer says that logging is “damaging Maine’s natural resources.” At issue seemed to be the writer’s concern over the state’s deer herd and the threats from loss of wintering habitat for deer because of logging. The writer states: “If the State of Maine is serious enough and has the guts to regulate and enforce effective laws to preserve our natural resources, not ask for volunteers, we can do that.”

Yes, we can do that but what is the right thing to do? The writer suggests that all it takes is “guts” to tell a landowner they can’t have what is rightfully theirs. But people somehow don’t believe it is rightfully theirs. They think they have a right to tell you how to live and how to make your living.

If you were a rancher or farmer, is all it would take would be “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you out of ownership of a barn because perhaps the smell of manure bothered some people? After all, it just takes guts. If you owned a home with a back yard swimming pool, would it be acceptable to “regulate and enforce,” with “guts” no less, for you to be prohibited from having a pool because someone thought it dangerous? What if you had a large tree in your yard that you were afraid would fall and damage your home. All it would take is guts to “regulate and enforce” you into not being able to cut that tree because it might have “historic” value….or something. And so, you have a title to 50 acres of land where your home is built. The government determines that 40 acres of that land is habitat for a rare plant and so, you are prohibited to use or sell that land in order to protect that plant. All it takes is “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you from what is rightfully yours.

Doesn’t this actually define an illegal “takings?” How do we, as a people, a government, have the right to take property from somebody without just compensation? With “guts” we can simply “regulate and enforce” landowners to stop harvesting timber that MIGHT be detrimental to the proliferation of a large enough deer herd so that residents can hunt them.

Isn’t to have the “guts” to “regulate and enforce” nothing more than fascism? If not fascism, certainly totalitarianism. We now live in a totalitarian/socialist state. If we can’t get away with “regulate and enforce” or illegal takings, then, if Maine is so determined that the reduced deer herd, the effect of which is part of a struggling economy, is so important, then landowners should be justly compensated for a “taking.” As such, all residents will endure an increase in taxes to pay for the takings…each according to his ability, each according to his need…and we must also consider the ramifications of price increases due to shortages of resources – supply and demand.

In reality, the landowner isn’t the landowner at all. He holds a piece of paper that allows him to pay taxes on it and to do with that land ONLY what government dictates him to be able to do. We continue to convince ourselves that we own land and can do with it what we want. The short of it is, it doesn’t take “guts” at all. It only takes government to demand and take. Citizens don’t understand that when they demand “there ought to be a law,” they are doing the bidding for the government against the people.

While citizens are making their demands to “regulate and enforce” their own ignorance and selfish greed prohibits them from a deeper understanding of the consequences of such demands. It will be only a matter of time before that demand to “regulate and enforce” comes around and bites them squarely on the backside.

I began this article stating how easy it was to demand laws. Those laws on demand are for somebody else not you, is our attitude. That is our mindset and that is why it is easy. Instead of thinking of what those consequences will be WHEN your turn comes around to be regulated and enforced upon, it’s easier to demand if of other people. And, more than likely, your demands are based upon false information you have been spoon fed that causes you to think “there ought to be a law.”

There ought to be a law that prohibits people from demanding “regulate and enforce.” Ha Ha

Share

American Individualism is a Product of Much Work by our Founders

American individualism is a product of much work by our Founders, a meeting of the minds of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and its many centuries’ old principles are embodied in the US Constitution. The Magna Charta is about 800 years old and still very relevant. American individualism forms the foundational basis of our government and therefore cannot be anti-government. But it is clearly anti-Communist, anti-fascist Nationalist and anti-consolidation-of-power found in similarly in the Communist Manifesto, the Koran and the bureaucratic administrative states in America.

Drunken Karl Marx, responsible for nothing, created distinctions without differences. Part of his psycho-babble was “I stroll through the destruction a creator.” Setting classes against each other, that is, creating distinctions without differences, is an established tactic of the Communists, so said FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover, a loyal, trustworthy and moral American if there ever was one.

Von Mises’ 1951 refutation of the class divisions of Marxist Socialism entitled “Socialism” at page 299 states that, “Once it has been perceived that the division of labour is the essence of society, nothing remains of the antithesis between individual and society. The contradiction between individual principle and social principle disappears.”

In other words, not only is American individualism not antagonistic to society’s government, its miracle of freedom created the strongest government in the world in the history of mankind. And, the highest per capita income in the world ever since the 1830’s, as the late British economist Angus Maddison observed.

But for too many decades now, America has been moving away from founding principles of limited government and individual freedom.

So what are the common characteristics between Communism, the Koran and the administrative bureaucracies that destroy the fundamental Constitutional freedoms of individualism?

In short, each consolidates power. Both the Communist Manifesto and the Koran advocate gangs of indoctrinated who roam society and mete out “social justice”, if you will, as they find it. Bureaucratic agencies use Investigators who roam about or are tipped off by anonymous contacts. These three types of consolidated power get rid of the role of pesky lawyers, but they also combine a number of divisions of labor that are prohibited in our history by English Common Law as expounded by Wm. Blackstone. Only the administrative process attempts to hide the consolidation of power by having law-trained administrative law judges rubber stamp the steam-roller process in kangaroo court. But substantive (authentic) due process requires more. Much more.

Everyone can inherently understand the reasoning behind the common law’s prohibition of the Sheriff also serving as the Judge as a conflict of interest. It is obvious that the Sheriff will not accuse and arrest unless the Sheriff is convinced of guilt. And the Judge is supposed to be impartial. If not, a Jury will stand between the individual and the government. Add the requirement that the laws be published in writing and come from an elected legislative body, and you describe the requirements of the Magna Charta.

But when Communists or radical Muslims grab, accuse and execute you, they act as Sheriff, Judge, Jury and Executioner. It’s more complicated than that in the administrative state. The agency Investigator, sees the offense, sends in the information, and by letter, the agency tells the accused of the fine for the violation. So the agency acts as both the Sheriff and the Judge. The agency has another agent contact the accused to work out a deal. Many times, a deal is struck because the agency offers to settle for a lesser amount now, but more if you exercise your Constitutional rights. But everyone in the agency acts as One on behalf of the agency.

The agency accuses you, sentences you, tries to work a settlement with you, then enforces the sentence. As a general rule in the legal system, the initial accuser cannot be anonymous. And the administrative rules are not created the same way a law is.

And as a general proposition in court litigation, there are ethical rules regarding attorney communications with the opposite party that do not apply in agency settlement “talks”. But with agency actions, you get no jury trial right, even on appeal to the Judicial branch. In fact, changing the process from an appeal to the Judicial branch to a review by the Judicial branch simply makes the Judicial branch an extension of the administrative law judge function.

Such is more than a lack of niceties. It is a consolidation of power. But the consolidation does not end there.

Prof. Hamburger in his 2014 legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” from which much of the foregoing is exquisitely detailed, summarizes the consolidation of power at page 323 thusly: “In other words, administrative law harks back not merely to the time before the adoption of the United States Constitution, but all the way to the early Middle Ages. It then was commonplace to imagine that government power belonged to a single person or group that would be sufficiently wise, forceful, and judicious that it could be entrusted with all government power.”

To further describe the consolidation of power in bureaucratic agencies (the administrative state) in more detail, Prof. Hamburger makes the analogy of the human “intellect, will, and force” to the three separation of powers being the “lawmaking will, executive force, and judicial understanding…”. Id at pages 326-327.

He further points out that in the exercise of legislative will, the legislature is divided into two houses, and made up of elected people who represent individual interests. And the result of that legislative will must survive the Executive’s veto. Then there is the Executive who may be removed by the Legislature and Judiciary under certain circumstances. And the Judiciary is made up of three divisions of courts beginning with the trial court and two appellate courts to review decisions.

But Executive’s agency rules evade all of those safeguards by consolidating its rule-making process to a publish and comment process that, frankly, seems to operate more as a “should we go slower or faster” military-style after-action report.

And that is not the worst of it. Judicial deference to rule making, deference to rule interpretation and deference to the agency’s facts is an inexcusable abandonment of the duty of the Judicial branch to expound upon the law, or in this case the administrative rule. The most powerful point supporting that assertion is the fact that the Judicial branch does not allow even Congress to interpret its own laws, but it defers to the administrative state’s interpretation of its own rules. And the administrative state agency is a party in the litigation.

To a lawyer, deference to a party litigant is a shocking discovery. The Judge is supposed to be impartial, neutral. But it cannot when it defers to one of the parties in the litigation.

In those ways, administrative law defeats America’s unique Constitutional individualism. And major reform must be done. One is that the Judiciary must be reminded of its duty. And laws designed to thwart the proper judicial role must be changed and or found to be unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers. Two, administrative law judges whose decisions approving agency actions are overturned on Constitutional grounds two times should become automatically disqualified to work for government for life. This two strike rule should not disbar the attorney, but put him or her out into the private sector to make a living.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

In Colorado, The Call to Control Humans Not Bears

Further proof that Americans are living in a totalitarian socialist state and that animals are more important than people and the lifestyles they choose to live, people cry out for more control over humans so animals can be protected at all costs.

In Colorado, bears are a problem. This year it is being blamed on a shortage of natural food. However, authorities admit there are too many bears…period. If we lived in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, we’d go kill some bears and bring the population back down to manageable levels for public health and safety. But that doesn’t fly with the totalitarians who hate rural America, the heritage that goes with it and the common sense of letting people protect their property and safety. This is insanity in full force.

In Glenwood Springs, Colorado totalitarians are calling for further restrictions on humans. No that’s not a misprint. I said humans. Because there are too many bears, fines should be levied against anyone who allows a bear to come on their property looking for food. If the homeowner isn’t complying with all the ridiculous gestapoesque regulations, they get fined. Humans must seriously alter their lifestyles and pay fines to protect an animal species that authorities say there are too many of them. How does any of this make sense?

Evidently the program that city officials implemented isn’t working out so some are suggesting turning enforcement over to the police department.

Hey, idiots. You have a bear problem. Why don’t you just run the people out of town or force them into intern camps and let the bears have their way? That is your goal isn’t it?

One city council member suggested that what should be done is a repeal of the bear hunting ban. I’m sure that will not go over well because totalitarian idiots love their bears.

And all the while this is going on, in Maine, the Humane Society of the United States is allow to lie through their teeth about what is going on in states like Colorado that banned bear hunting like these fascists want to do in Maine. HSUS goes unchallenged. HSUS has filed a lawsuit in Maine to stop the fish and game department from opposing the referendum, saying it’s unethical. How about a counter lawsuit to stop HSUS from lying repeatedly. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Lying is readily acceptable these days. The end justifies the means.

So long as we continue on down the road of mythology, that we NEED “reasonable” regulations and restrictions, compromising our existence for the sake of animals, there is little hope.

Nothing to see here. Move on. More important things to be seen on your smart phones and eyepads.

GlenwoodSpringCo

Share