November 24, 2017

Why Is Baiting a Difficult Term to Define?

It was a simple question…or so I thought, but it turns out that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) Communication Director opted not to define baiting of deer but to only refer to the Legislator’s creation of a law and/or suggested asking a Game Warden. Nice!

According to George Smith, outdoor writer and activist, he directed his question about what is bait to MDIFW because a reader wanted to know if a mineral block was considered bait.

It seems that Maine, under Governor Paul LePage, has channeled itself down the road more toward fascism creating such draconian laws with punishments not seemingly commensurate with the act and certainly not equitably administered to the masses. One example of such is the new law that punishes hunters for trespassing violations greater than any other labeled citizen.

The latest in the Maine Legislation’s attack on hunters, is another draconian law dealing with baiting deer. It is unlawful, and always has been to “bait” deer, i.e. to feed deer at a particular place for the purpose of lying in wait to ambush an unsuspecting deer…unless of course you are doing that over an “agricultural” crop.

The new law, shown below, prohibits placing “bait” someplace in order “to entice deer to that place.”

So what is bait?

Merriam Webster is all over the place in its definition of bait. Check these out as they seem to be dealing with the act of luring or enticing an animal.

2a :to harass (a chained animal, such as a bear) with dogs usually for sport

3a :to furnish with bait (see 2bait

  • bait a fishing line

 

  • bait a trap
b :enticelure 
4:to give food and drink to (an animal) especially on the road [Somebody help me out with this “especially on the road”]
And so I looked at “bait” as directed above and this is how Webster defines what bait is:
1a :something (such as food) used in luring especially to a hook or trap 

  • using worms for bait
b :a poisonous material placed where it will be eaten by harmful or objectionable animals
So much for that and does it really matter? Law makers don’t pay much attention to Webster’s definitions, or anybody else’s. They just do what they intend to do. And, as is usually the case, laws are either purposely written to confuse to keep lawyers wealthy or are poorly written and worded because the lawmakers are really ignorant. I’ll let you decide which applies here.
The Maine law now reads:
  • 11452. Baiting deer
  1. Prohibitions. A person may not, during an open hunting season on deer:
  2. Place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place; or [2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]
  3. Hunt from an observation stand or blind overlooking salt, grain, fruit, nuts or other foods known to be attractive to deer. This prohibition does not apply to hunting from an observation stand or blind overlooking:

(1) Standing crops;

(2) Foods that are left as a result of normal agricultural operations or as a result of a natural occurrence; or

(3) Bear bait that is placed at a bear hunting stand or blind in accordance with section 11301, subsection 1.

 

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §10659  is enacted to read:

  • 10659.  Feeding or baiting of deer
  1. Prohibition. A person may not place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place from June 1st to the start of an open hunting season on deer and, if all open hunting seasons on deer are closed before December 15th for that year, from the close of the last open hunting season on deer to December 15th.
  2. Penalty. A person who violates subsection 1 commits a Class E crime.

What I find most confusing is the wording: “A person may not place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place.”

The real kicker is “OR ANY OTHER BAIT.” So what is “bait?” Salt is clearly appointed and “to entice deer to a place” is mostly clear, although lawyers could have a lot of fun (make lots of money) with that.

The Communications Director refused to answer Smith’s question as to whether or not a mineral block was bait, instead referring him to the written law and instructing the person to talk to his local Game Warden. Huh? Maybe the director knows the law is vague and took the easy way out or he was doing what politicians do best – avoiding giving a direct and concise answer.

Is bait something edible?

I recall the story of traveling down the road one day during deer hunting season and spotting a deer (a doe) in the middle of a hay field seemingly eating something. I stopped my car (I didn’t have an “Any-Deer Permit”) and eventually discovered the deer was having quite an episode with the remains of a balsam-scented plastic container designed as an air freshener to be used in the home.

Was this “Glade” scent box bait? One has to wonder if this deer was attracted to it and a hunter intentionally put one out in the field to “entice deer to” it, would he be guilty of baiting deer?

Which brings us to the tens of thousands of hunters who regularly use scents for masking and luring. Are these now illegal? Will hunters be entrapped by wardens? And what of the scent making industry? Do they see this law as a serious threat to their economic well being?

What is most stupid of this entire stupid law, is that it makes no sense and is inconsistent with other restrictions and inconsistent with sanity. It is unlawful to “entice deer to a place” by “baiting” and yet it is not unlawful to hunt deer over standing agricultural crops or in fields where an agricultural crop has been harvested, such as a corn field, etc. Evidently it is okay to hunt deer over a bear baiting station. Huh? But to place a squirt of “Doe-in-Heat” in the middle of a buck pawing and climbing into your tree stand or ground blind, is “enticing a deer to a place” and is therefore illegal.

Let’s be reasonable here. Like with baiting bears, the need is driven, we are told, as a means of increasing the odds of successfully harvesting a bear for management purposes, i.e. population control. MDIFW doesn’t need to reduce deer populations, in most locales, and so baiting is not needed and evidently MDIFW believes baiting will cause an increase in harvest numbers….or do they?

MDIFW has always been opposed to winter feeding of deer for some good reasons and mostly for poor reasons…or no reason at all. So, when we see stupid laws like this, we ask ourselves is this just another incremental fascist step toward banning all forms of feeding?

Because hunters use a wide array of scent covers and lures, the law should be better defined. Obviously the lawmakers are probably not hunters and/or, if they are, never use scent covers or lures. Surely, the new law, placed in the hands of lawyers, will be ruled as prohibiting anything that might lure or entice a deer to a place. Beware your aftershave or deodorant.

It is common sense, when game managers don’t want hunters hunting over bait piles, to state the fact. In my travels, I have come across piles of apples in the middle of a pine grove (I call them pine apples) and I’ve also seen apples, cut up or smashed, placed in netted onion bags and hanging from a tree limb about chest high. This is baiting. Clear and simple.

Creating words that say it is unlawful to use any kind of “bait” to entice deer to a place, without providing a clear definition of the word bait, is arbitrary and seemingly capricious – capricious enough that if one didn’t think the legislators were so ignorant but knew exactly what they were doing, would be bordering on criminal. This sets the stage for hunter entrapment, which may be the intent of the law. I don’t know.

We live in a police state and Maine and many other states seem eager to create laws to bolster the police state. Ben Franklin once said that when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When legislators pass stupid laws like this one, and the one that doles out greater punishment to hunters, it casts fear into the hearts of many and thus the result is a form of tyranny.

Why do we put up with this?

Share

Because We Love Our Servitude

Share

Group Calls on U.S. Senators to Prove They Aren’t Hypocrites

Senators Who Organized #WebofDenial Climate Change Marathon in U.S. Senate Should Make Public Their Communications With Donors About this Event

Senators Also Should Step Outside the U.S. Senate, Where They’re Protected Against Libel Charges, When Making Allegations, and List the Financial Conflicts of Interest of Their Donors, Group Says

Marathon by Liberal Senators Was in Support of Resolution Calling on Groups Not to Defend Themselves if Liberal State Attorneys General Accuse Them in Court of Presenting a Point of View Differing from That of the Senators

Senators Want Groups to Surrender Their Right to a Defense in Court, Since Otherwise, the First Amendment Protects Their Right to Share Their Views

Senate Marathon Comes as Wall Street Journal Writer Kimberly Strassel Releases New Book Detailing 24 Ways the Left Attacks Free Speech and Political Dissent

A Chapter is Dedicated to the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Work Against Liberal Efforts to Force Corporations to Stop Working with Conservative, Centrist and Free-Market Organizations


Washington, D.C.  The National Center for Public Policy Research is calling on a group of high profile Senators working on the climate issue to prove they are not hypocrites.

The call comes in the wake of a two-day just-completed marathon on the Senate floor condemning dozens of conservative and free-market policy groups for not endorsing the global warming theory.

The condemned groups either are unconvinced significant human-caused global warming is occurring, that any such warming would be catastrophic, and/or that proposed new laws, treaties and/or regulations would have a meaningful effect on any global warming. The Senators disapprove of these views.

“The Senators took to the Senate floor and for two days claimed that many of the groups hold the views they do because they are paid to do so by a variety of businesses and philanthropic foundations,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “The Senators’ presentations were rife wife errors, including a failure to even remotely prove their false charges, but that’s not the worst of it. The Senators’ goal is to crush the free speech rights of these organizations and help set them up for prosecution for their views. Furthermore, it’s likely the Senators are being hypocritical.”

The Senators listed the names of large donors to some of the groups while making the unsubstantiated charge that the donors would benefit financially if bills and regulations favored by the Senators are not adopted.

If they are not hypocrites, Ridenour said, the Senators should:

1. Make public all communications with their own donors, and the donors of organizations assisting them in organizing and publicizing this marathon, that discussed this event. What’s good for the goose, in other words.

2. Make these accusations in a public venue outside the Senate floor, where the Senators by law are protected from the libel laws. The Senators should make their accusations while subject to the same libel laws as every other American.

3. The Senators should list all the donors they have, and their supporting organizations have, that have a conflict of interest on this issue. These include donors that have received or have applied to receive taxpayer support for so-called ‘green’ energy technologies or who stand to profit in any way from new laws, regulations or treaties ostensibly intended to combat global warming.

“If groups on one side of the climate change debate have had their donors made public, it’s fair for the other side’s to be made public as well,” said Ridenour. “The Senators also should provide convincing evidence the groups they essentially have accused of being ‘on the take’ actually are. The Senators listed donations given by companies that agree with the global warming theory as well as philanthropic foundations with no known interest in the topic as evidence that so-called ‘denier’ organizations are being paid to fight the left on climate issues. That makes no sense. The Senators should make a case, not just an accusation, and they shouldn’t be hiding like babies behind libel protections unavailable to anyone outside of Congress. And of course the Senators should reveal their conflicts of interest.”

The Senators’ marathon comes following increasing scrutiny of left-wing efforts to shut down speech with which it disagrees.

A new book by Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel, “The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group),” is dedicated solely to this relatively new phenomenon. The book’s 24 chapters each are dedicated to a different way the left seeks to shut down free expression by those who do not share its views.

A full chapter of the book covers efforts by the National Center for Public Policy Research since 2007 to combat shareholder proposals by left-wing unions and groups that would restrict publicly-held corporations from working with centrist or conservative/free-market organizations while continuing to work with, and seek advice from, those on the left.

“The Senate marathon was organized by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has introduced a Senate resolution calling on groups not to defend themselves if liberal state attorneys general accuse them of presenting their point of view,” said Ridenour. “This is America in 2016.”

The Canadian skeptic-attack blog DeSmogBlog, credited with being an early adopter of the term “denier,” calling it an intentional reference to identify skeptics with people who deny the existence of the holocaust and thus intended to associate disagreement with the global warming theory with immorality, identified participating Senators as Ed Markey (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (S-VT) and Al Franken (D-MN).

DeSmogBlog, sensitive to the donations made by others, was founded with funds from John Lefebvre, an online casino businessman subsequently convicted of a money-laundering felony in the United States (as reported by James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute and many others).

The allegation that no organization would disagree with the left on climate change unless it was paid to do so comes as the American public, presumably unpaid, is increasingly skeptical that global warming is anything to worry about.

Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller collected polls on the issue in 2016, reporting that a YouGov poll found “only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern”; a “Fox News poll from December found only 3 percent of Americans polled listed global warming as their top concern,” and “a CNN poll from January 2015 found that 57 percent of Americans did not expect global warming to threaten their way of life.”

“The National Center for Public Policy Research is listed as one of the so-called ‘denier’ organizations,” said Ridenour, “but was not singled out for attack by the Senators on this occasion, perhaps because it receives 96 percent of its funding in small gifts from individuals and is not receiving any climate-related funding from large donors. The National Center did receive funding from ExxonMobil for some years until 8 years ago, when ExxonMobil told us the funding would be discontinued unless we joined with the liberals and adopted the alarmist position on global warming. We obviously declined, and have not received funding since. We did make this public. As our entire funding mechanism and this story undermines the narrative of Senators Whitehouse and the others that climate ‘denier’ groups are being bribed to adopt a skeptical position, mentioning us would not have been useful to the liberal Senators.”

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. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

Awe, It’ll Never Happen In This Country

GunControlJapanese

Share

Several Nations Under Satanic Rule

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the fascism for which it stands, several nations, under Satanic rule, divided, with oppression and corruption for all.”

Trespass

Share

Congress to Vote on Scaling Back ObamaCare’s Requirement that Restaurants Print Calorie Counts in Menus

*Editor’s Note* – This is a classic example of how those who pretend to be “conservatives” or “liberals” never attack the real problem. Here we see someone attempting to water down a fascist law that requires restaurants to do as the fascist government demands or suffer the consequences. Why can’t we just tell the truth and say that if we actually lived in a free country, no tyrannical government would be forcing anybody to do anything. But, it’s somehow okay to accept the tyranny so long as we just water it down a bit?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama Administration’s FDA Makes it a Felony if Even Small Restaurants Make an Error When Posting Calorie Counts

Administration Also Forbids Restaurants from Posting a Range of Calories for Items, Such as Pizza, That May Be Ordered With Variable Toppings

 

New York, NY – “Few people realize ObamaCare’s tentacles extend all the way into your favorite corner pizza shop, even making an error in posting calorie counts a felony. Congress now has the opportunity to take a small slice out of this terrible law,” says Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and head of its Risk Analysis Division.

This week the House of Representatives is expected to debate and vote on theCommon Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015.

Stier, who is based in Manhattan, was among the first to notice, as well as criticize, the calorie count requirement on menus buried in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.

The bill would scale back the FDA’s onerous one-size fits all rules implementing the requirement that restaurants post calorie counts on menus.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has determined that the calorie count requirements will require more than 14 million compliance hours and cost more than $1 billion.

“The FDA’s reckless implementation of the calorie-count rule makes the launch ofhealthcare.gov look look seamless by comparison,” says Stier.

“Why didn’t the FDA take advantage of the provision of the bill that directs the agency to revise the regulations to account for the unique attributes of these types of entities without compromising consumers’ access to nutrition information?” asks Stier.

Stier is particularly concerned about the lack of flexibility in the FDA’s approach to how restaurants handle variable menu items. “If a restaurant offers individual toppings or menu items that can be ordered with variations, it should be allowed to post a range of calories rather than a specific count for each of what could be millions of variations,” he says.

“The fact that we even have to resort to fixing the FDA’s rules for implementing menu calorie counts is disheartening, since there’s evidence that mandatory calorie counts actually increase the number of calories people consume at these establishments.”

Stier has been a leading voice against the Obama Administration’s regulatory over-reach into our diets, debating the subject on CNBC and writing about it in the New York Post, Forbes, National Review and elsewhere.

Share

Second Amendment Brainwashing

BrainwashThe following statements have been credited to Adolf Hitler in the book Mein Kampf:

“The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses. But the masses are slow-moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them….”

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

“The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.”

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. …”

“To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. …”

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and pioneer of public relations and propaganda usage, and who was also part of the propaganda force used by Wellington House (later Tavistock) to influence public opinion pertaining to World War I, said:

“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.”

“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.”

What better way to “address(ed) always and exclusively the masses” than beginning with pre-school and ending up at college? Eventually, the education, through repeated propaganda, will begin in the womb. Americans should know, but probably do not, that our education factories were taken over many decades ago; the result of which is what we see today in our social and moral decline – or do you see such declines? For those that don’t know about the takeover, let me list, briefly, a few of the organizations and think tanks that decide what you and I were taught, what our children are being taught and our children’s children: Aspen Institute, Brookings Institute, Institute for Policy Studies, MIT, National Training Laboratories, Rand Research, Stanford Research Institute, Wharton School, Tavistock, and many more.

Guy Debord, in “Comments on the Society of the Spectacle” tells us: “Spectacular government, which now possesses all the means necessary to falsify the whole of production and perception, is the absolute master of memories just as it is the unfettered master of plans which will shape the most distant future. It reigns unchecked; it executes its summary judgments.”

The short of it is, you and I have NOTHING to say about how our kids are educated and what crap is being drummed into their heads. This should have become obvious long ago when Lyndon B. Johnson, as part of his propaganda tool called, War on Poverty, pushed and passed the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Designed for failure (Failure in this case pertains to the fact that the program failed to accomplish what Americans were told it would accomplish.) it set the stage for the next step toward the manipulation of education (propaganda) for the masses – always the masses.

In 1979 president Jimmy Carter created a stand-alone Department of Education – a better way for centralized government to wield power and brainwash the masses – Spectacular Government.

Hiding behind propaganda to, “establish standards of excellence for all children,” President Clinton and Al Gore created the “Goals 2000” education program. After propaganda was used to convince the people that our education system was “failing,” (all designed to “fail” and be replaced with a new program.) along came George W. Bush who was going to, once and for all, end the “failure of our schools” and thus was born, “No Child Left Behind.” Consequently, many children got left behind (again propaganda efforts to convince Americans our schools were failing) and with the election of Barack Obama, government got brave enough, the result of years of brainwashing and effective propaganda, to implement an education program with communism built right in – Common Core.

Common Core is a global initiative designed as a one-size-fits-all propaganda and brainwashing tool to be used and administered by a centralized, one-world government or global department of education. If successful, by the standards of the global fascists pushing the program, Americans and their children will be learning what a centralized, fascist government intends for them to learn.

And yet, we eagerly deny that there is anything wrong with our education system and with it refuse to accept that we have all been brainwashed to believe and accept certain propaganda that influences heavily the way we think and act, i.e. trust Government.

It’s odd, that should anybody consider these possibilities, the way the brainwashing and propagandizing works, the disbelief is remarkably ridged, forcing people to deny that such sinister acts exist, claiming they would recognize it if they saw it. Thus the difficulty in convincing brainwashed people they are brainwashed. What does it take?

Note: If you are not, in the slightest, convinced of any of this brainwashing mechanisms, it is quite pointless to continue reading.

Recently I wrote, “Second Amendment is Considered ‘Infringable’ by Most.” I presented examples that showed how the Courts went out of their way to protect other rights, such as First and Fifth Amendments, and failed to show the same perspective and respect for the Second Amendment and its protection.

Heavily entrenched into debates about the Second Amendment, is the nonsense about “reasonable restrictions.” Sometimes discussed, even by people who self-proclaim their avid and unwavering support of the Second Amendment, is that there should be restrictions on what kinds of “arms” should be limited by fascism, infringing on the Second Amendment.

I have often heard the argument from those opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment was designed and intended for “the times in which it was written” – whatever exactly that means. The twisted reasoning here is that at the time the Bill of Rights was crafted, there was a need that some people should be armed but only armed with the weapons of that day – i.e. a musket. It might be assumed that the common man didn’t own a cannon because he couldn’t afford one. But, if he could afford it, and wanted it, he had the right to keep and bear ARMS. Today, the same financial restrictions apply, however, one does not have a right to own them even if he could afford to.

As arguments go, to claim that the Second Amendment was intended for the events and circumstances of 1791, then the Second Amendment should be intended for the events and circumstances of 2016. Instead, the call is to get rid of the right, because the people are so heavily brainwashed they can’t recognize their hypocrisy and ignorance. It’s difficult to blame the people. To some degree, they just don’t know what they are doing and saying – by design. Come out of the whore, the Bible tells us.

Because we refuse to review and study real history, the failure becomes exacerbated through the devising of such ridiculous conclusions that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to only the ownership of a rifle or pistol. History and the words of those founders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, show us the reasoning behind and the necessity of a Second Amendment. The short of it was that the Second Amendment was, “necessary to the security of a free State,” and to protect us from the tyrannies of a centralized government.

If you have belief in the U.S. Constitution, then you should recognize that the writers did NOT give themselves all the power and control the U.S. Government of today has. The Founders clearly stated that the necessity of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizenry from the government – not necessarily the government of other countries but our very own U.S. Government. Thus, with the advent of sinister applications of propaganda and the subsequent usurpation of education by those intent on propagandizing the masses for sinister reasons, we see a complete change in the need to keep and bear arms as protection from our government, to a calling upon government for protection. Do we not recognize or understand this change? Evidently not. There is little reason to think we no longer need protection from our own government, and yet, many, especially gun haters, sincerely are convinced the United States Government would not harm its citizenry, therefore there should no longer be a need for a Second Amendment.

I might ask the same questions as Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Often discussed with Second Amendment issues is the infringement upon the kinds of “arms” this government allows its subjects to possess. Embedded fear, through propaganda and education/brainwashing, creates unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of what a citizen might do with a cannon but because of misled trustworthiness, considers it proper in the hands of government. Historians probably remember there was considerable debate about whether this country would have a standing army in time of peace. Noah Webster told us that before a “standing army” can rule, the citizenry must be disarmed. It was fresh in the minds of colonialists the power of tyrannical governments. Many were opposed to the government having an army. And why? They understood the dangers of standing armies and ill-thinking politicians and power hungry perverts.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides for Congress to “raise and support Armies,” but were restricted to the funding of such armies to not more than two years.

With the power of Congress to raise and support Armies, the argument then can be made that in order for a free American, of self-determination, to limit the threat of government tyranny over himself, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be limited by the government. The only reason a government would place those limitations on its people is to ensure that the people can never have anything near the right to keep and bear arms as the government does, under the guise of national defense. Therefore, the intent of the Second Amendment becomes ineffectual. Our belief that our self-possessed armament is truly a deterrent to tyranny is dishonest. Slavery is but one act of Congress or that of a tyrant, away.

If the Second Amendment, determined to be a right of the people by the U.S. Supreme Court, and, as the right claims, the purpose of the Second Amendment is “necessary to the security of a free state,” to protect the people from the tyrannies of too powerful governments, why then do we allow the government to limit our Second Amendment rights?

Do you really trust government that much? I certainly have a lot more trust in my neighbor than I do this, or any other, centralized government.

With disinformation and misinformation, combined with outright lies, embedded into American’s minds, not only do we fear that any fellow citizen should have the right to own automatic weapons, grenades and rocket launchers, our ignorance and lack of ability to think and reason, places all of us at a greater risk of that fear of a despotic government and slavery. We just cannot and will not see that.

Consider the many who buy into the concept that a well-armed military, including a large, modern army with high-tech weapons and mass-killing weapons is a deterrent to foreign invasions, or of war, by tyrannical governments. And yet, these same would not even consider that same rhetoric to apply to the need and purpose for a citizenry to be armed well enough to at least put the fear of God into a group of corrupt politicians to remind them it might not be so easy to place Americans into governmental servitude.

I doubt that few can see or understand my thoughts and reasoning. I never expected that they would. Instead of people asking the right questions, like why do we allow government and hate-filled groups to infringe upon the Second Amendment, directly destroying the only real protection we have against tyrannical government and preserving all other rights, they allow their fear, bred from brainwashing, to warp their thinking that arms in the hands of a lawful citizenry is more dangerous than in the hands of a government – a government known to have murdered and killed millions of people during the span of its history, little, if any of it, justified.

We, as a society, blind to the propaganda and products of the brainwashing, trust government over our neighbors. It’s just unbelievable! Even though recent polling, another propaganda tool, shows that less than 10% of Americans trust their government and Congress, we still are of the mindset that unlimited arms in the hands of corrupt government is better placed than in the hands of a people – a people once believing that they were the government and keeping and bearing arms guaranteed their protection from government.

Hasn’t the brainwashing worked marvelously?

 

Share

Destroying Second Amendment: Create Problem, Force Reaction, Offer Solution

ProblemReactionSolutionOne of the problems with the National Rifle Association, as with far too many Americans, is they buckle to nonsensical calls for “reasonable” limitations to a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yes, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided that it was a constitutional right of an American to keep and bear arms. However, in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, he let it be known that the Court’s decision did not prohibit “reasonable” Second Amendment restrictions.

McDonald v. Chicago, had similar results and yet, how free are D.C. and Chicago residents to practice this right to keep and bear arms?

With the only deterrent left in this country to ward off tyranny and dictatorship, the necessary goal for this achievement must be the disarming of the people. It has been systematically at work for a long, long time, albeit slow, it is happening. At the present pace, and the willingness of too many people to place limits on their rights, what then does the future hold for what’s left of American freedom?

Any and all Second Amendment protection groups will never be able to truly address the disarming of Americans until they are willing to understand who is behind it and how it is being done. As brainwashed people, we don’t want to believe that “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12) (Global Power Structure)

The “principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places,” have a very simple formula for controlling people. These rulers have understood human nature for a very long time. They have made it their life’s work. They have understood for a very long time that, civilian gun ownership is a problem for world dominance and control. They also understand that they cannot simply bust in every door in America (yet) and take our guns. There has to be a way to do it in which, not only will people not recognize the effort, they will be eager to comply, to accelerate their own slavery, by believing what they think they are seeing, and heeding what they are told.

As I said, the formula is simple but difficult for blind people to see. First, the rulers create a problem. This is followed in a timely manner with getting the people to react emotionally to the problem. With emotions, especially fear, in place, the very same powers that created the problem, offer a solution.

Most people do not have much difficulty in accepting that there are people who act and react to frightening events in this country, because they believe the “problem” to be real. With fear firmly embedded, those with “solutions” go to work. These solutions are designed only to further the cause of disarmament.

The United States Government has never offered a “program” that was successful – meaning that it did not accomplish for the people what the Government told them it would do. It is successful, if only in tiny increments, to the ruling powers to achieve their long-term goals, i.e. disarmament.

All Government departments and programs are designed for failure and to ensure that the majority of citizens are always and forever dependent upon the same government.

What is most difficult for Americans to swallow, is any suggestion that our own government, the Shadow Government (Council on Foreign Relations) and all the members of the Global Power Structure, wanting us all disarmed, create the so-called “problem.”

When “problems” happen, like a cop shooting, school shooting, theater shooting and now even terrorist shootings, three entities go into action. On the one hand we have the brainwashed people, who have been conditioned to believe that any gun has the ability to kill at random. The mere presence of a gun scares the living daylight out of them. They are programmed to be scared and react accordingly. To go along conveniently with this programmed fear are groups, some of whom are useful idiots who believe what they have been told and will do anything to destroy their own liberties in the name of safety. Some of these groups are planned groups who work directly with the Global Power Structure to perpetuate the fear and the calling for “laws to be made.”

It matters not that laws already exist. These people are scared and are demanding SOMETHING to be done. This is when the Global Power Structure, who created the problem to begin with, steps in with another (final) solution. With each subsequent “problem,” and “reaction,” another “solution” is offered. There is no end to this.

Groups like the NRA, who claim to be defenders and supporters of the Second Amendment, do no such thing when they, not only go along with, but promote “reasonable” limits to the right to keep and bear arms.

Today I posted a link to an article telling of one South Carolina representative who is offering a bill that would require all “journalists” to have background checks and obtain a license to practice their First Amendment rights. Of course the point of the bill is to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the Media and others to take little regard at protecting a right to keep and bear arms, but who show their outrage at anyone suggesting messing with the First Amendment.

It no longer matters that any gun limitation laws will have zero effect on violent crime. Nobody wants to hear that criminals don’t obey laws. This is a product of years of mind control, through propaganda and brainwashing. Step by step, soon the country will be disarmed. The “rulers of darkness” and the “spiritual wickedness in high places,” will continue to create the problem, promote reactions, and then offer their solution. Failure to recognize this formula, will quickly result in the destruction of this nation. This formula is not endemic to only the disarmament of our country. It is at play within every aspect of politics, government and our private lives.

It is time for those who think they support the Second Amendment to step up and help expose the creators of the “problem.”

PROBLEM > REACTION > SOLUTION.

 

Share

Fascist Obama’s Executive Order on Guns

*Editor’s Note* – In an interview with reporters last night, Hitler and Himmler President Obama and Loretta Lynch shared what would be in the president’s Executive Order on gun control, said to be publicly released this morning. As is noted below, people, particularly seniors should take concern over the statement that the Social Security Administration will make rules to prohibit CERTAIN SS recipients from owning guns.

As with the Weimar Republic in Germany in 1928, and the Hitler Regime that followed, certain groups and classes of people were targeted (anyone perceived as a threat, not just Jews) in order to prohibit the buying and/or owning of any kind of weapon, including knives and baseball bats. As was the case in Germany, no definitive guidelines were established to list qualifications and disqualifications, leaving that up to the Reichkommissar to decide.

In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.

Source: Obama Executive Order on Guns

Share

Corrupt Congress: To “Ensure a Right is Not Unlimited”

On Sunday, (yesterday) I posted a link to a proposed “Assault Weapons” bill, a link that had previously been left on this web site by a reader and contributor. I quietly waited to see if any readers would respond to the “preamble” to the bill, stated as follows: “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

It appears nobody read it or, paid it no mind. Consider the words. Here we have a large group of Congressmen (I didn’t count, but well over 100) who are either so blatantly ignorant or are following in the footsteps of ALL OTHER, wrongly-elected government officials who must consider the constitution a piece of camel dung, worthy only for wiping their rear ends with, of course, at the expense of all Americans’ liberties.

There once was a day when at least some of the belly-crawling reptiles, who cheated their way into a lap of luxury and utter corruption in Washington, considered it their elected duty to UPHOLD – confirm or support; maintain a constitutional right – the rights of citizens. It was their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Included in that responsibility should have been the protection of the process that would assure that no constitutional right was amended or gotten rid of without due process. It must be shown, through debate, that any bill proposal DOES NOT contradict the liberties of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. When’s the last time that happened?

In Bill H.R. 4269, the evil lords of their own minds, boldly and tyrannically state that their bill should exist for the purpose of ensuring that the Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED!

Well, bravo for the corrupt bastards!

It is now clearly spelled out for all to see that their purpose in Washington is to make sure that no American has any RIGHT, written and sworn to in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If I have to spell it out for you, I will. This means no right given to any person by any MAN, for any reason, under any document, is worth the used portion of a roll of toilet paper. You want to continue to elect these thieving criminals you go right ahead. I stopped the farce several years ago.

Throw all the damned “rascals” out! The problem is they will be replaced by the same bunch of contaminated pond suckers.

 

Share