October 18, 2018

Hikers Must Pass Environment Course Before They Can Hike

Just the other day I read where in Utah, a person must take a “free” online “Antler-Gathering Ethics Course.” Think about this for a moment before you laugh at it or, more than likely, laugh at me.

To the totalitarian leaders in state government, carrying out the wishes of the fascist regimes in Washington, the plebs are incapable of doing anything without government say so and control over it. This is ALWAYS followed by the issuance of a tax in order that the fascists can collect their filthy money in order to continue their filthy ways. Unfortunately, but very few see it nor are they interested in Truth, most hunters and outdoor sportsmen, smile while being accosted and pillaged hiding behind the stupid excuse that what government is telling them to do, “is for the good of the Motherland.” If that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, then simply state such laws and restrictions are reasonable.

Most hunters, but not all, if you are capable of understanding, speak that they support the right of a person to keep and bear arms. However, the overwhelming majority will cower and say that “reasonable” restrictions to this right are “good for the Motherland,” failing miserably to understand that in so doing a right is turned into a privilege. A privilege is easily taken away. We fall into our grave and evidently love it.

We don’t even understand the word reasonable. The use of the word reasonable is value-weighted. In other words, it is defined by whoever has enough authority to levy “reasonable” based upon their own perceptions of what the term should mean. In this world of progressive leftism, rooted firmly in immorality and decadent lifestyles, what does reasonable mean today? What will it mean tomorrow? If you can’t see this point, you are a victim of your own progressivism and don’t know it. I’m sorry!

In Utah is a clear example of such. Government has decided that before you can take a walk in the woods to find some antlers that fall off animals, such as deer, elk, and moose, they must tell you how to do it. My guess is the overwhelming majority will think this is a good thing and will protect these animals in the late winter when most sheds drop.

Half of these that support an “ethics course” to shed hunt often openly state that gun control laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. I suppose that to these masters of illusionary ignorance, a law-abiding citizen is one that is smart enough to know what is illegal and respectful enough to abide by those laws. Therefore, all law-abiding gun owners are those that_________________. (I’ll let you kid yourself and fill in the blank.) While you’re at it, fill in this blank. All ________________ who took the mandatory ethics course are law-abiding slaves.

Always bear in mind that you, being a law-abiding citizen (wink-wink), don’t know how to “ethically” pick up shed antlers and you need someone to tell you how. If you agree with this then you must be one who also needs government to tell you how to “ethically” own a gun and how to “ethically” use it. The same must hold true for fishing, archery, boating, hiking, biking, walking, talking, sleeping, eating, and the proper and ethical way to use an outhouse.

Most understand that disturbing an animal that is stressed by the harshness of winter does the animal no good. If it is really that detrimental to the health of the animals, then wouldn’t it make sense to outlaw shed hunting? Probably, but that doesn’t fit well into the narrative of the totalitarians and the fascists who demand that we do everything they want us to.

Don’t deny it! You will shake your head at me and ask yourself what drugs I’m on because I don’t care at all for government and everything they do and stand for. While at present, a “free” online course on the ethics of antler shed hunting sounds so…so…so…, well, how do I put it? Leftist progressive? Grounded in environmentalism? Totalitarian? Fascist? What? Oh, you say it’s a great idea? And will it still be a great idea when for anyone who gives a tinker’s damn, learns nothing has changed by forcing the proletariats to comply with the government and then will come the tax? I predict the majority will be eager to pay “each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

If this is the growing trend, and it certainly appears that everyone is “all aboard” this freight train to hell, line up and let’s make it the same for everybody. No need to pick on just shed hunters…is there?

Before anyone can “hike,” – any good totalitarian, leftist, idealogue can clearly define what is a “hike” – they must complete a course on the ethics of walking while not disturbing flora and fauna; carry in and carry out; how walking the same path causes erosion; how to properly go to the bathroom while in the woods (yes, there is something unethical about taking a dump on somebody’s private land and leaving a giant stack of toilet paper.) But let’s not disturb the animals…never the animals. Kill humans, leave the honorable animals alone.

This list and more can apply to any outdoor activity. Forcing the law-abiding (wink -wink) citizen-serfs to pass a test written by government totalitarian/fascists, will change nothing. But if they have their plans down pat, they can collect a tax and get their law enforcement heroes to arrest and fine anyone caught not following the manifesto. Be careful when one of those heroes approaches you, your hiking stick might just look like a weapon.

Okay! Go ahead and laugh now!

But, by all means…

DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Cantwell To Trump Administration: Don’t Cut Taxes For Corporations By Raising Entrance Fees To National Parks

Press Release from the office of Sen. Cantwell, member of the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

Seattle, Washington – Today, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) joined with leading outdoor enthusiasts and small businesses to call on the Trump Administration and Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to withdraw the National Park Service’s (NPS) proposal to nearly triple national park entrance fees.

On October 24, the National Park Service announced a proposal to almost triple the peak season entrance fees at 17 of the most popular national parks. Beginning in 2018, fees to enter these parks during the 5-most-popular months would jump from $25-$30 to $70 per vehicle. The entrance fee increases would impact: Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, Shenandoah, and Joshua Tree National Parks.

“We are here today because the Park Service plans to almost triple the entrance fees at the 17 most visited and most iconic national parks across the country – including Mt. Rainier and Olympic,” said Senator Cantwell. “As corporate tax breaks are also being discussed, I don’t know why park fees then have to be raised. To me this price increase is unconscionable.” 

According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation is a major economic driver. In Washington state alone, outdoor recreation accounts for more than 201,000 direct jobs, $26.2 billion in annual consumer spending, $7.6 billion in wages and salaries, and $2.3 billion in state and local tax revenue.

“With the Park Service Centennial just last year, we have begun a big conversation about how to get more people into the parks – and more people enjoying the outdoor economy. Increasing the fee, is not exactly what I think will do that. These are wonderful places, and they are public lands, and should be affordable for everyone,” said Senator Cantwell.

During the event, REI released a statement saying, “REI stands firmly by our longstanding, nonpartisan view of the outdoors. For 80 years, we have worked with leaders from both parties to protect America’s iconic outdoor places and create access to transformative outdoor experiences.”

The fee increases proposed by Secretary Zinke will price out many visitors and deny American families, veterans, young people, and seniors the opportunity to visit and experience some of our nation’s most popular and iconic national parks.

Share

If Climate Change is “Settled Science” Why Do We Continue to Research?

That’s essentially what Joe Bastardi says in his contribution opinion piece to the Patriot Post, suggesting that Congress should take the money budgeted for Climate Change research and give it to cover the costs of “preconditions” within the communist health care plans (fake) being proposed by Congress (fake).

Being that we live is a world that is 100% post normal and there is no longer any discussion about why in hell are we being robbed of the money we work our asses off for so that Congress can continue to pay Big Corporations and Big Pharma and suggest levying more taxes to cover fake things that the fat cats don’t want to pay for?

How about this suggestion for all you communist/socialists who LOVE your damned servitude – LET’S DEFUND CONGRESS AND SEND THEM ALL TO HELL!!

Share

Because We Love Our Servitude

Share

Whose Money Do You Think Government Spends?

GeorgeGilderQuote

Share

Another TAX and Registration That Accomplishes Nothing – Government Control

SUMMARY: This action provides an alternative, streamlined and simple, 
web-based aircraft registration process for the registration of small 
unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned aircraft operated as model 
aircraft, to facilitate compliance with the statutory requirement that 
all aircraft register prior to operation. It also provides a simpler 
method for marking small unmanned aircraft that is more appropriate for 
these aircraft. This action responds to public comments received 
regarding the proposed registration process in the Operation and 
Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking, 
the request for information regarding unmanned aircraft system 
registration, and the recommendations from the Unmanned Aircraft System 
Registration Task Force. The Department encourages persons to 
participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments on or before the 
closing date for comments. The Department will consider all comments 
received before the closing date and make any necessary amendments as 
appropriate.

DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2015. Comments must be 
received on or before January 15, 2016.<<<Read Entire Interim Final Rule>>>
Share

Give Up Your Rights and Hand Over All Your Money: We’re All Going to Die

Nye, the scientist and host of “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” used his speech at Rutgers’s commencement Sunday as a platform to tell students to start voting and find a way to stop climate change.
Source: Bill Nye talks climate change, racial conflict at Rutgers graduation | NJ.com

Share

What Happened?

TaxFight

Share

Revenue-Hungry Rhode Island Seeks 80% Tax on Lifesaving E-Cigarettes

Tobacco-Free E-Cigarettes Help Tobacco Smokers Quit; Taxing Them Like Tobacco Cigarettes Would Harm Smoking Cessation Efforts

As Rhode Island Goes, So Goes the Nation?

New York, NY/Washington DC – National Center Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier is submitting testimony today to the Rhode Island legislature in opposition to a plan by Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee to impose an 80% tax on e-cigarettes.

Chaffee believes that “electronic cigarette laws should mirror tobacco product laws.”

Stier says Chaffee’s policy would lead to unnecessary deaths.

“The Governor’s budget includes an 80% tax on the manufacturer’s price of e-cigarettes. This would have the effect of making the most commonly purchased e-cigarettes more expensive than real cigarettes. If this tax is included in the final budget, it may have the unintended consequence of discouraging smokers from switching to dramatically less harmful e-cigarettes.

He adds: “The consequence of fewer e-cigarette sales is a deadly one. The vast majority of those who purchase e-cigarettes are adult smokers trying to quit. So discouraging the use of e-cigarettes, the stated purpose of the excise tax, would actually incentivize smokers to continue smoking.”

“It is critical to note that e-cigarettes are attractive alternatives to cigarettes, in part because, like the FDA-approved gum and patch, they provide nicotine,” Stier continues. “Nicotine, while highly addictive, is not particularly harmful at the levels at which it is consumed. While nobody should initiate use of any nicotine products, be they pharmaceutical, e-cigarettes or certainly tobacco-burning cigarettes, legislators should know that it’s not the nicotine that makes cigarettes dangerous. It’s the burning tobacco that makes traditional cigarettes harmful to users and those exposed to the smoke. E-cigarettes contain no tobacco.”

Stier is suspicious of tax-supporters’ claims that taxing e-cigarettes is the best way to reduce their sale to minors. “If the Governor truly wanted to prevent the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, he would not have vetoed 2013 S 633 Substitute A last July,” Stier says. “That bill would have simply banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.”

Stier supports banning e-cigarette sales to minors.

Stier believes the proposed tax is a revenue-raising measure, but says the tax, if approved, is unlikely to raise revenue: “In Rhode Island, sin taxes are likely to lead to more out-of state sales, where there are no excise taxes on e-cigarettes. As such, the likely result of this e-cigarette tax would be lower revenue for the state, while yielding little or no impact on the use of e-cigarettes.”

A copy of Stier’s full written testimony is available here.

Stier’s testimony is being submitted in writing due to the weather-related cancellation of his formal testimony before the Rhode Island Senate Finance Committee today.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, and has submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings. Most recently, he testified before the science committee of the New York City Council about that city’s ban on public use of e-cigarettes and submitted testimony to the Oklahoma legislature on the same matter.

Stier has testified about e-cigarette regulation before the New York City Council, submitted testimony to a joint committee of the Oklahoma legislature and has met with federal officials at the Office of Management and Budget and the Food and Drug Administration on the issue.

He’s written about the topic for the New York Post, the Huffington Post the Des Moines Register, and elsewhere.

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Godfrey Bloom: The State is an Institution of Theft

VIDEO:

Share