Louisiana Government Destroys 1,600 Pounds of Deer Meat Given to Homeless People

Caring Hunters and homeless people in Louisiana are righteously outraged after state health officials forced a homeless shelter to throw out nearly a ton of perfectly good venison meat.

The meat that had been donated to the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission could have fed more than 3,000 people. Instead, it was tossed in trash bins by reckless officials from the Department of Health and Hospitals who say that state law prohibits the serving of venison in homeless shelters.

Not only did the ignorant officials toss the meat, they doused it with Clorox to make sure it couldn’t be eaten by animals or, presumably, people.

“Deer meat is not permitted to be served in a shelter, restaurant or any other public eating establishment in Louisiana,” an official told Fox News in an email. “While we applaud the good intentions of the hunters who donated this meat, we must protect the people who eat at the Rescue Mission, and we cannot allow a potentially serious health threat to endanger the public.”

Richard Campbell, co-founder of Hunters for the Hungry, a charitable group that donates wild game to shelters, said hunters across the state and in Mississippi are outraged about the statement and the waste.

The state’s health Gestapo got involved after someone at the shelter complained about being fed deer meat, a staple in many countries across the globe and considered by most people to be a treat or a delicacy.

I don’t know what’s wrong with Louisiana, but in California, turning down venison would be like turning down a lobster tail with drawn butter — it’s something that sane people who aren’t vegetarians just wouldn’t do.

The director of the mission said they’ve been serving venison for years. The shelter, by the way, doesn’t take any government money. It’s completely self-sufficient thanks to its donors.

“This was really good meat,” said the Rev. Henry Martin. “It’s high in protein and low in cholesterol. It’s very healthy. … You would think we would have due process. But they meant to destroy the meat – that’s for sure.”

Louisiana hunters participating in the state’s deer management programs are allowed to keep as much meat as they can handle. Martin’s mission asks hunters to donate the rest. The donated meat is processed at a local meat plant.

State Rep. Jeff Thompson called the destruction of the meat “insulting,” and he’s right.

Only a truly callous bureaucracy could dare pretend to care about the homeless then turn around and destroy food intended for the needy, for no real reason other than “because” that’s what the rules say.

I’m sure you recognize the excuse — used to justify evil deeds, from the treatment of slaves to the rounding up of Native Americans to the Holocaust. You hear it from bureaucrats at all levels, from bus drivers to presidents. It’s an expression of contempt for the rights and needs of the common man.

In the case of the meat destruction, it’s also an illegal taking of property for which the mission needs to be compensated.

An apology is the least that the state should be doling out for this Kafkaesque assault on the homeless and on common sense.

Tax Breaks for The Hollywood Hypocrites

The director Steven Spielberg is not a Patriot. He will take your American dollars yet he openly supported the Regime at Election time. Vile Steven Spielberg could have put the movie “Lincoln” out prior to the election to show how Obama is the complete opposite of Abraham Lincoln. Instead Vile Steven Spielberg help the movie back and too the tax breaks from the Regime.

We also read where Glenn Harlan Reynolds exposed Hollywood hypocrisy over taxes in The Wall Street Journal, chronicling how many recent Oscar-nominated films benefited from tax breaks and how much Lincoln received en route to Oscar night.

All the while, these disgusting celebrity stars plead with government officials to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Of the nine "Best Picture" nominees in 2012, for example, five were filmed on location in states where the production company received financial incentives, including "The Help" (in Mississippi) and "Moneyball" (in California). Virginia gave $3.5 million to this year's Oscar-nominated "Lincoln."

Concerned citizens can see this informative article below from Kevin Glass at Townhall.com

If Hollywood Liberals Want Tax Hikes, They Should Look In the Mirror


If you're settling in to watch the Oscars tonight and want to genuinely enjoy the experience, best not to think of the fact that those Hollywood celebrities do their best to suck the government of all the tax subsidies they can get while simultaneously advocating that taxes be raised - just, you know, not on the movie industry.

Peter Schweizer over at Forbes writes:

Consider a few of this year’s Oscar nominated films. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Institute, Quentin Tarantino’s controversial spaghetti Western, Django Unchained, featuring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio has applied to receive an estimated $8.4 million in film tax credits from the State of Louisiana. Actor-director Ben Affleck and producer George Clooney’s film, Argo, received $6.21 million in tax credits from the California Film Commission. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, featuring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones, hauled in $3.5 million in tax-free film credits. Silver Linings Playbook bagged a cool $5.6 million.

Indeed, 40 states now have some form of subsidy or incentive that allow filmmakers to defray income and/or sales taxes incurred during filming. Thirteen states even offer so-called “transferrable film tax credits” that allow filmmakers to convert unused credits into cash—at taxpayer expense, of course.

Hollywood celebrities generally skew liberal, of course, and there's no shortage of them on the record as wanting to pay higher taxes. Ben Affleck, the star and director of Argo, one of the most-decorated films of the year, has repeatedly said things like "I don't spend so much that I can't afford to pay a little bit more in taxes."

If these Hollywood stars were serious about paying more in taxes, they'd attack the tax "incentives" for moviemaking. It'd be much more efficient, and they might even get a few conservatives on board!

Unfortunately, the Motion Picture Association of America has one of the most effective lobbyists in the country: Chris Dodd, former Democrat senator from Connecticut. And Dodd's not about to let those juicy tax credits slip through Hollywood's fingers. Dodd claimed that the fight for tax credits is about small businesses and "dry cleaners, restaurants, and florists."

“Not only does film and television production in New York employ the thousands of men and women working on some of the most popular television shows and films, it also supports small businesses in every sector of the economy – dry cleaners, restaurants, florists – who benefit when a production comes to town.”

So while Hollywood enjoys one of its most popular nights and pats itself on the back by giving awards to itself, remember: they're happy to remain blissfully ignorant about how their industry sucks tax revenues out of government coffers.

Elites Protect Themselves with Guns but not American Citizens

What do American presidents and vice-presidents, their wives and children, foreign heads of state, many governors, big city mayors, large company CEOs, prominent directors, actors, singers, and other entertainers, and the children of many wealthy people in Washington, DC, and other wealthy "elites" have in common? They carry guns or have armed guards to keep them from becoming victims of criminals, even when they are in countries, states and cities with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Almost all these elites who are also Democrats have something else in common; they don't want you to have a gun with which to defend yourself, your family, or other law abiding Americans.

How many of these protected elites are actually murdered annually in the U.S.? Usually none, or nearly none. And, actual attempts to kill them are rare. It is almost exclusively the rest of us, not the elites, who are the victims of violent crime. We are the ones who need guns to protect ourselves and our families. I don't want harm to come to the elite (or anyone else), and I don't begrudge their armed protection. But, the lives of my family members are just as important to me, as are the lives of your family members to you, as are the lives of any of the elites or their family members. We have just as much right to protect ourselves and our families as do the elites.

The political elites write our laws and are supposed to enforce laws to protect American citizens. They are not fulfilling these responsibilities. Did you know that the number of gun prosecutions by President Obama is down 45 percent? Did you know that illegal aliens, people who shouldn't even be here, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime? Did you know that the elites in charge of America's major cities (almost exclusively Democrats) preside over cities with much higher rates of gun violence than the national average, often despite their very restrictive gun laws?

Why don't the elites enforce current gun laws and put violent criminals in prison permanently? Why does revolving door "justice" prematurely return violent criminals to the streets? Why aren't violent juvenile criminals treated severely? Why don't the police round up the gangs known for much of our violence and confiscate their illegal guns?

Not only are the violent criminals not stopped by the elites, criminals are encouraged by restrictive gun laws that prevent law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

If someone from outer space landed here, he or she or it would think that those in charge want lots of people killed by criminals. Perhaps they would think Americans are playing some sort of a game where armed criminals have the right to hunt disarmed people (hasn't Hollywood made movies like this, e.g., The Most Dangerous Game?). But, after hearing politicians talk about taking guns from law-abiding people while doing little to stop armed criminals, the spacemen might conclude that innocent people are intentionally being sacrificed, to create a crisis which politicians can use to justify political objectives.

The fact is that the elites are not protecting American citizens. Is it because they can't or they won't? If they can't protect us, and it appears they can't prevent criminals from getting guns, then they have no right to take away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families. History shows taking away guns just makes more victims.

If the elites won't protect us, for whatever reason, and they still want to take away our ability to protect ourselves, then the spacemen's suspicions are probably correct, the politicians are allowing gun violence and sacrificing people, like the children in Newtown, to promote the political elite's goal of controlling the American people.

Leaders lead by example, so here is how I see it. Our elites, i.e., the president, vice-president, senators and congressmen, governors, mayors, CEOs, actors, entertainers, and other rich people, should give up armed protection for themselves, their spouses and their children before the rest of us are asked to give up our Constitutional rights. Until the elites give up their armed protection, politicians and the power of government should focus on taking away the freedoms of people who commit crimes, not the people who don't.

Don Ewing
Meredith