September 18, 2019

An Ethical Shot?

I was reading V. Paul Reynolds very good article the other day about how important it is when hunting moose, to do your best in placing a killing shot. What I got thinking about though was the idea that so many writers/hunters/trappers these days put emphasis on the term of an “ethical” shot or “ethical” kill.

Let’s first examine the definition of the term “ethical.” By definition, ethical means: “relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. Morally good or correct. Avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment.”

Hmmm! It seems we need to examine what “moral” means. “Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” Er, ah… or maybe: “Examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct.”

Getting closer: “Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.”

I think this one pretty much covers what drives comments about “taking an ethical shot” when hunting. “Concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.”

So, essentially an “ethical” shot means one that accomplishes the “morally good” conduct that meets the standing acceptable behavior in this particular society at this particular moment.

Perfect! Not really. It’s hogwash!

Geez! If we are going to get all “moral” about this issue of shooting and killing, then perhaps those opposed to hunting have some valid ground to stand on. I mean, seriously. Is killing anything “morally ethical” in this “particular society?”

We hunt for various reasons. To be successful hunters must kill. We hope the kill is quick, for more reasons than just “ethical.” Some practice their skill of hitting a target. Some are better equipped to make “ethical” kills than others. They have better eyes and coordination to make a quick “ethical” kill.

But let’s face it. When we pull the trigger are we really thinking about ethics? Or are we thinking much of anything except we hope we make the shot and not have to chase our prey all day?

I understand the desire of many to not allow any animal that is a resource to suffer when being taken. I think it is dishonest to lay the term “ethical” onto any taking. I think it is more ethical to be honest about the truth than to place some conjured term to the act of shooting to kill.

Perhaps we can find a better more honest word or term to describe simply a quick kill. Oh, hey! Why not “quick kill?”

Share

California Bans Trapping, Except…..

California, the testing grounds for fascist laws, socialism, and all progressive ideas, has decided to ban all “fur trapping for animal pelts,” saying the practice is “especially cruel, obviously, and it’s just unnecessary and costly.”

In attempts to influence public opinion, the linked-to article describes trapping as, “trapped animals are strangled, shot or beaten to death,” and yet goes out of its way to specifically point out that, “…using traps to catch gophers, house mice, rats, moles and voles would still be permitted.”

It appears that being “especially cruel” to animals only applies to those animals that the fascist/totalitarians view as more valuable than others. What isn’t “especially cruel” about smashing the brains of gophers, mice, rats, moles and voles when the trap slams shut? Or is it that these kinds of animals are viewed as less desirable in a progressive society?

Perhaps the perspectives of these animal protectionists is much like the same perspective used when dealing with people the world over. When this society doesn’t like another culture, or deems it less desirable, we simply invade the country, slaughter masses of the people and justify it as “spreading democracy” often citing the reason as it is our “Christian” responsibility to do so. In other words, one culture of human beings cannot be treated “especially cruel” while another can?

INSANITY!!

BUT DON’T GO LOOK because you won’t recognize it anyways.

Share

Government Gang Bangers and Insanity

I was listening to a conversation the other day about why people say disparaging remarks about obese and unhealthy people and why the comments aren’t directed “toward the system that created fat people.”

Good point.

Also included somewhere in that conversation was the question of what was the origin of the term “gangbuster.”

Webster puts it simply as: “one engaged in the aggressive breakup of organized criminal gangs.” Members of these “criminal gangs” are called gang bangers.

The U.S. Government is both gangbusters and gang bangers. A gang banger is described by Webster as: “bully, gangsta, gangster, goon, gorilla, hood, hoodlum, hooligan, mobster, mug, plug-ugly, punk, roughneck, rowdy, ruffian, thug, tough, toughie”

The U.S. Government will “agressive(ly) breakup” any one or group that opposes them or stands in the way of their own criminal agendas…even taking on murders and assassinations to accomplish their tasks.

And yet, in the same moment of existence, while destroying any perceived competing “gang bangers” the U.S. Government practices all the fine arts of being gang busters, as given in examples above.

An example of this can be found in the Government’s aggressive position on Global Warming. It has been discussed by some members of the U.S. Government (members of Congress) that anyone who denies that Global Warming is real, should be charged as a criminal and punished accordingly. It appears that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders believes gas executives should be criminally prosecuted for the damages they have caused because of the claims that fossil fuels cause Global Warming: Government bullying (gang banging) at its finest.

But, there’s more to Government gang bangers and their gang busters when it comes to Global Warming. Part of what permits Government Gang Bangers to bully the people into compliance with any of their draconian, people-controlling laws and punishments for non compliance, is our own insanity.

Here’s an example of this. The other day I was sent a link to a story about Global Warming from a reader. It was about a Netflix program where the narrator used old U.S. Fish and Wildlife footage of walruses “jumping off” cliffs and placed the cause as due to Global Warming.

According to the article I was reading, the narrator of the program said that: “…walruses have been driven to suicidal falls from rugged cliffs because there is no more ice for them.”

The footage that was fraudulently used to control people’s emotions (gang banging) was film that showed polar bears rushing walruses forcing them over the cliffs, much in the same fashion as some predators do with their prey species.

The existence of any form of “Global Warming” will always be a contentious and debatable event…by design. It can be argued that the theory of Global Warming is insane, but is that where the insanity exists?

The real insanity is that a recognizable media person announces that walruses are committing suicide, jumping off cliffs, because there is no more ice. The completion of that insanity is that millions of people believe the statement.

Isn’t the real insanity in all of this that people actually believe that a walrus, or any animal for that matter, can reason the desire or need to want to die for any reason? It is insanity to project human emotions and reasoning, or lack thereof, onto animals.

Because people are insane, a part of an insane society, is it any wonder that U.S. Government gang bangers are busily at work being criminal thugs in order to do whatever it is they intend to do?

An example of when the Scriptures tell us that in the Last Days He will send “Strong Delusion” on those not out of focus with Yahweh’s Word.

Share

Systematically DESTROYING the LIE of evolution with REAL Science II

Share

Systematically DESTROYING the LIE of Evolution with REAL Science I

Share

Some Environmentalists Say…

I was recently accused, if that’s the word, of “broad-brush stroking” when making a comment about how “Environmentalists” want to control every aspect of our lives through senseless (no, seriously) regulation to a point now that it has become serious over-regulation.

So, fearing that someone who identifies as an “Environmentalist” might accuse me of lumping all environmentalists into the same cauldron of stewing rotten meat, let me say that SOME environmentalists (and yes, probably SOME on the RIGHT and SOME on the LEFT and SOME in the MIDDLE) have a very peculiar form of circular thinking (actually it is lack of thinking otherwise they wouldn’t be so stupid to be making certain statements and accusations) especially when it comes to how hunting causes so many “bad” things to happen.

I have been known to state that those who perpetuate the myth of Global Warming, that is, in the sense in which they attempt to sell it, have a very similar form of circular reasoning as SOME do when it comes to the effects of hunting.

We know, because we listen (for some unknown reason) to those who blame Global Warming on everything…yes, EVERYTHING, that Global Warming causes both hot and cold…sometimes at the same time. Global Warming is the cause of anything any believer would like to blame it on. Hunting isn’t all that much different from the perspective of a circular thinking environmentalist and/or an animal rights advocate.

Many dinosaurs have gone extinct because Cave Men hunted them to extinction. In the more modern era, buffalo went extinct because man hunted them. Caribou are going extinct because man hunted them. Elk had to be reintroduced because man hunted them to near extinction. Mountain lions, we are told, have gone extinct in many portions of the U.S. because man hunted them. Gray wolves, red wolves, Mexican wolves, wolf wolves all went extinct because man hunted them. Pick a species…any species and some Environmentalist will tell you it went extinct because man hunted them (whether they did or not).

However, to SOME environmentalists, hunting also causes certain populations of animal species to “compensate” for losses caused by hunting. So which is it? If hunting causes species to go extinct, how can hunting also cause species to grow to numbers too big? Like Global Warming causes hot and cold, floods and droughts, wealth and poverty, hunting evidently will cause both extinction and compensatory replenishment.

How convenient!!!

Share

SHOCK: Google Censors and Manipulates Search Engine Results

A reader sent me a link to a Michelle Malkin piece published at Ammoland, about information from a Google whistleblower who claims that Google manipulates and censors content from its search engines and other media outlets, such as YouTube.

Well, no kidding!!! Cripes sakes anyway. For many years I have been making that obvious claim. But I guess now with a whistleblower, we can confirm this is common practice at Google…or can we? Who is running this dog and pony show anyway? And most importantly, does anyone REALLY care? NOPE!

Like Facebook and all the other social media sites, they are all fake, controlled, manipulated, and censored. We are all at the mercy of the tech giants (whoever they really are) if we choose to participate in the game of Internet Technology Charades.

I began a “blog” before blogs were called blogs and before software became readily available in which a writer/blogger could more easily publish his work and have it available for anyone in the public realm to read or have access too.

Back in the day it was a frustrating thing to figure out how you could end up at the top of the heap in the search engines’ results pages. Some chose to spend money to buy their way into the search engine results (inject money? What possibly could go wrong?)

I first posted on an official blog site in November of 2005. If I could count the couple of years of hand-crafted blogging, I’m zeroing in on 15 years of posting blogs on the Internet (that’s only 5 years less than Malkin). With well over 30,000 personal posts published to only my own websites, one would think by now I could be easily found in the search engine results and readers numbering well into the tens of thousands. Not so!

Not unlike the big guns in Big Tech, I also have authored or co-authored 4 books. I have written too-numerous-to-count articles that have been published in many print and digital media sites across the country and in foreign lands. After 15 years of nonstop writing and publishing, a rational mind might think I would have a giant readership and would show up in the landing pages of search engines when readers/users search for key words that are common to what I mostly write about. Not so!

After all these years, I figure there must be one, or more, of at least three things going on. First, the base of my content is so tiny, with little interest, I will never draw more readers. Second, I’m a terrible writer incapable of holding the interest of readers enough to entice them back for more, and third, I have been for the past 15 years censored and manipulated off the search results pages.

I believe that in the last 4 to 6 months, especially since I have done a little shifting of content to information about the evilness of the corrupt man/government and sharing truth in the Living Word of Our Creator and “Hidden Scriptures” promised us to be revealed in the Last Days, my site has been the target of even my web hosts, who, for no apparent reason (to me anyway) shut down my website, claiming I was harming their servers and due to a poorly designed website I needed better security, etc. Even after showing them I had all the latest gadgets as part of the con game, they still refused to put me back online.

After over a month, I finally got the web hosts to upgrade their own software and I was brought back online. However, since coming back on line, my readership has been shrunk to basically nonexistent. At my peak, I had 3,000 to 4,000 daily readers (a pittance when you consider 15 years of writing and posting). Now, I’m lucky if a get a couple hundred.

Many readers who have signed up to receive my email notifications of when new articles are published, are finding the notifications shunted to the SPAM folder. Key information in those published articles is censored by the controllers of the Disqus commenting software system.

So, what’s the use? Sure I can tell you all about it and even complain, but what’s the use of spending valuable time researching for content to share, when the entities to which I am a slave to, are deciding who gets recognition and who does not.

It’s all part of the bigger Rigged System, the Bread and Circuses. I have no recourse. My only option is to hold out hope that the handful of readers I have value what I write enough to keep reading and hopefully they will be changed, even in the tiniest of ways, for the better having been fed portions of truth.

So, the reality is, if I chose to continue with an Online presence, I have no choice but to remain a censored slave by the “Image of the Beast.” I can complain to no end, but nothing will change and I suspect the censoring and manipulation will get even worse.

Will the day come when heavily censored writers will be target for execution? More than likely.

Share

Where Image Counts, The NRA Has Become a Serious Pimple on a Boar’s Behind

Jim Shepherd, published on the Outdoor Wire, tells of more troubles ongoing with the National Rifle Association (NRA). Board members are vacating the false Second Amendment supporting NRA because the reality is that those whose businesses rely on image, image, image, and where image is everything, all the negative press and scandals made known to the public concerning the NRA is casting bad light onto business folks associated with the NRA.

When pimples and boils fester on a dirty behind, before the pimple can be popped or the boil lanced and drained, the behind needs to be washed – cleansed and disinfected.

This has not taken place and the dirty ass if infecting the boil more than is necessary. Until the proper procedures are followed, the best thing most high profile people associated with the NRA can do is run and hide and at the same time nicely try to cover their tracks…as is revealed in Shepherd’s piece.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Share

Consider the Dangers of “Red Flag” Laws

The hot topic these days, prompted by repeated staged gun shooting events, is what is called “Red Flag” laws. Red flag laws are essentially laws enacted that gives power to some named authorities to attempt to predict what they think a person MIGHT do that would become a danger to society or the person in question. In the case of red flag gun laws, the issue is whether or not a person is mentally ill and might pose a threat to themselves or others.

Consider the dangers.

First, such red flag laws, bastardize due process of law as well as removes the long held principle that a person is presumed innocent until a bonafide court of law determines guilt. American society today, bolstered by fascists and promoted by ignorant totalitarians have lost all sensibility when it comes to the protection of their presumed rights and government allotted freedoms. This action contributes to their own insanity and thus we are left with a bunch of people, most of whom are mentally challenged themselves, calling out for insanity in another person who chooses not to live the mainstream lifestyle of insanity, instead selecting their own methods of insane existence. So, who is right? The one with the power right?

As was pointed out yesterday by a reader of this website, we now have entered the extremely dangerous ground of enacting laws based upon what we think a person might do based on their state of mind. If a person is, in fact insane (which aren’t we all by someone’s standards?) is that person capable of recognizing mental incapabilities in other people? Because a person doesn’t live as I, does that make them insane? In this insane world it certainly does.

I don’t consider myself insane, but I know for a fact there are some (perhaps a lot) who think I have some serious mental deficiencies if not just unusual ways of looking at things, mostly because of my spiritual beliefs.

I was watching a movie the other night trying to relax after a physically demanding day, in which one of the actors in the movie stated that ANYONE who believed in God suffered from a mental disorder.

If a law enforcement person (and need I have to remind readers that not all law enforcement personnel are capable of putting behind them their personal perspectives on such things as religion, politics, etc. in their decision making processes?) chooses to think me mentally ill because of the hours I spend each day studying the Scriptures to show myself approved unto my CREATOR, can that law officer then bring me before a “medical professional” of his/her choice with like perspectives, rendering me doomed to the fascist, rigged system?

Because anger and hatred have been purposefully bred into our society, is there really any comfort to be had that none of this anger and hatred (insanity) is being injected into the rigged system of granted power to incarcerate a person and take their property from them simply because they think differently or because they are a republican and not a democrat?

When an honest assessment of life in these United States shows us the repeated death threats and threats of bodily harm and other assorted insane and perverse things, because these events are becoming more and more of routine acceptance as part of a dysfunctional society, from what basis are we beginning our assessment in attempting to determine the mental capacity of any individual who happens to possess “dangerous weapons?”

Throughout history we have read and sometimes witnessed attempts by powerful organizations to somehow control a person’s right of thought. How does anyone control another persons thoughts? Short of a “Clockwork Orange” concept, perhaps technology is not that far away from accomplishing that task but in the meantime, perhaps the best way to tread into the pits of hell is to enact laws that give somebody power to guess what another person might do based on their character, political association, sexual orientation, education, or lack thereof, color of skin, outward appearance, religious background or affiliation…there is no end. Is this what we want?

It is a terrible thing when anyone, for any reason, chooses to kill other people. If, as has been pointed out by some in the media, the acts of violence in our society are increasing, then perhaps it is more a reflection of a society with a rapidly shrinking moral base, a Godless society absent any knowledge of what is decent and not, rather than one in need of laws that attempt to determine a person’s thoughts or the possibilities of what they might do based solely on the perspectives of brainwashed authorities.

If we dare allow ourselves to let our minds run a bit wild, consider some of the possibilities an accepted “red flag” existence might render. With fully enacted and accepted “red flag” laws a normal part of society, then it would only make sense that such actions become the defense in a court of law for a legitimate reason one person killed another person – yes, your honor, I shot and killed that person because I believed, because I knew they were a mental patient and an active republican, they were going to kill me if I didn’t kill them. (I learned this on Facebook)

Of course nobody wants to even consider these possibilities but they are very real. That’s how progressivism works. With such perverted insanity becoming the “normal” in a forward moving society, sanity would tell us that by enacting “red flag” laws we are making things even worse and crafting a societal stage of reckless permissiveness based on nothing but fear, anger, and hatred.

Where will this insanity end? This is the epitome of the fox tending the chicken coup – the insane determining insanity.

Forgive them Father. They know not what they do.

Share

SAM Director Needs “Blue Papering”

The executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine needs to have the new law he created, fostered, and now fully supports (LD 1811) put into action against him. He is mentally suspect and is a threat to tens of thousands of Maine residents who, because oh his new law, can quickly have their rights dashed from their hands, leaving many and their families unprotected from real criminals, all in the name of guessing that somebody might do something wrong based upon the biased, and often unprofessional perspectives of cops and quasi medical people. From my perspective, the director should have all his “weapons” temporarily confiscated until such time as a court can rush to judgement over what to do with him and his guns.

Part of the mental disorder afflicting the director is that he believes that “justice” can be served when someone decides another person MIGHT do something wrong based on a person’s perspective of whether or not another person matches their idealistic, “normal” behavior pattern and has the targeted individual put into “protective custody,” weapons confiscated, and put on ice for 14 days waiting for a judge to decide what to do. Think about how things are in this fascist/totalitarian insane asylum called the United States of America. What judge in his right mind (if there are any) is going to release any accused mental patient and restore him/her their “weapons?”

Director Trahan can paint as rosy a picture as he would like but it doesn’t remove the stark reality that his law, while I want to say is “unconstitutional,” blatantly goes against what has been practiced for many years in this country where a person is allowed presumption of innocence and is not taken into custody AND had their personal property confiscated because somebody has power to attempt to predict what a person might or might not do.

I’m going to go out on a small limb here and guess that at some point in David Trahan’s political past and as the current E.D. of SAM, has at one time or other stated that gun control laws only effect innocent, law-abiding citizens – that criminals will get guns no matter whether they are banned or not…etc. And yet, here he is creating and promoting laws designed to forecast a person’s actions, a clear violation of an infringement upon a lawful citizen.

It has been historically stated that as long as any government, and/or those who participate in government, can keep the masses living in fear, they can control them with any laws designed to strip them of any granted or presumed rights of freedom.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

What is most tragic is when, due to ignorance and fear of reprisals, heads of sportsmen groups abandon their own rights for a bit of trumped up false security. Governments by themselves can create enough destruction of a person’s rights, we certainly should not have people like David Trahan gunning for (Excuse the expression. You might find it offensive.) laws that not only destroys our Second Amendment freedoms to keep and bear arms but also places in the hands of fascists and totalitarians the power to decide what another law-abiding American might or might not do because they might not fit the mold of what is perceived as sanity in a world gone insane.

Now that’s insanity.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it here – Trahan should step down as his interests are not in line with Maine’s outdoor sportsmen. He has become a serious liability to all gun owners across America and those who believe in the unquestioned right to keep and bear arms.

Share