My Facebook pages

Robert Montgomery

Why We Fish

Fish, Frogs, and Fireflies

Pippa's Canine Corner 



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.





Entries in IRS (2)


What the Second Amendent Really Is All About

As an argument for gun control, the Left likes to tell us that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the Second Amendment applying to weapons that we have today.

Horse hockey.

Actually, our Founding Fathers never envisioned full-time politicians and  a permanent political class.

They created the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to protect inalienable rights for citizens, reserve most governing decisions to the states, and restrict federal government to specific enumerated powers.  

How do you think the Founding Fathers would feel about a federal income tax? About the IRS, which targets the political opposition of those in power? About a Supreme Court that no longer just interprets law, but redefines words, including "marriage"?

How do you think the Founding Fathers would feel about a bloated federal government with nearly 3 million employees, including thousands of unelected, career bureaucrats in control of so much of our lives, including education and health care? Since the founding of this country, the federal government has grown inexorably, like a cancer, moving ever closer to the tyrannical authority that our Founding Fathers hoped to prevent, but realized was almost an inevitability. That's why they included the Second Amendment. It had nothing to do with the specifics of the firearms themselves.

If Thomas Jefferson could see what's happening today, I think that he would say, "An AR-15? You're worried about an AR-15? Hell, I think that every citizen should have a tank in his garage."


TRCP Responds to Green Decoys Accusations

On Aug. 14, I posted accusations that Green Decoys is making against the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). They relate mostly to TRCP’s assertion that it represents sportsmen, as it takes funds from environmental groups that often are anti-fishing and anti-hunting, as well as supportive of tighter gun controls.

In response, TRCP says this:

“The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership stands on its record of success fighting for sportsmen by fighting for conservation and access. Since its inception, the organization has been attacked by anti-conservation forces, usually working through industry front groups, for one simple reason: if sportsmen unite, sportsmen win.

“Before giving any credence to these attacks, we encourage people to research who is making the attacks and who is funding the attacks. In the meantime, the TRCP will keep working to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.”

It adds that the organization “operates financially with a very high degree of transparency . . . We are funded at numerous levels, from foundation grants all the way down to yearly $35 members. Our annual report and Form 990 are published openly on our website for all to see.”

Finally, it provides links regarding the origin of Green Decoys, and, I’ll acknowledge that it does not seem as transparent as TRCP regarding its origin and funding.  Green Decoys describes itself as “a project of the Environmental Policy Alliance.”

And the Environmental Policy Alliance is “a project of the Center for Organizational Research & Education” which was formerly the Center for Consumer Freedom.  The latter originated with Richard Berman, a public relations specialist, who campaigns against environmental groups and labor unions, among others.

But I must say that I am in sympathy with Berman regarding his opposition to the “nanny culture” in general and some of the “targets” listed on the Berman Exposed website. They include ACORN, PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, teachers unions, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Here’s a reminder about  EPA: A couple of years ago, a bureaucrat there compared his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion of Christians. When his comments went public, he was forced to resign.

But you can bet he’s not the only one in the EPA and other federal agencies who thinks that way. Remember Lois Lerner at the IRS?

Bottom line for me: Environmental funding groups push agendas in favor of bigger and more intrusive government and that inevitably leads to loss of freedom and abuse of power by unelected bureaucrats like that EPA official and Lois Lerner. Yes, TRCP does some great things on behalf of sportsmen, but, as it does so, it takes money from those groups, which also support anti-fishing and anti-hunting organizations and policies.  What does that cozy relationship mean for the future of fishing and hunting?