It’s long been known in the shooting and hunting communities that if a teen with a life-threatening medical condition has a desire to go hunting, Make-a-Wish will turn them down. Their wishes aren’t politically correct enough for the organization. This week, an Oregon outlet is covering a local Hunt of a Lifetime chapter and makes sure their readers know why Make-a-Wish decided to bar kids from hunting:
In 1998, Matt Pattison of Eerie, Penn., was losing his battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma when the Make-A-Wish Foundation denied his request.
Not only was the 19-year-old just over Make-A-Wish’s age limit, but his dream — for an Alaskan moosehunt — put the international nonprofit in a tough spot with certain donors, among them animal rights and gun control activists.
A year later, while Tina Pattison mourned her son, Make-A-Wish made its stance official — no hunting-related wishes.
Yup, gun control activists helped create the policy that it’s better to keep a dying teen out of their program instead of granting a wish that involves firearms or bows. How very reasonable of them. It’s just common sense, after all, to not even allow a 17-year-old who probably won’t see his/her 18th or 19th birthday to be considered for a hunting wish.
Political Activism at it’s worst. Filthy dirty liberals.
At least something good came out of it – an organization dedicated to making these wishes come true run by people who know hunting. If you want to discover a little something irritating your eye, read the feature about the Oregon chapter of Hunting of a Lifetime.
Wishes and More was formed for that very reason:
“Hunting, Fishing, and Sports Wishes for Children
And, finally, Wishes & More intended to enable popular Minnesota wishes to become a reality. This organization wasn’t established in order to grant hunting wishes but to be able to grant hunting wishes as well as other sports and outdoor wishes. ”
http://www.wishesandmore.org/index.cfm
The time has long since passed to recognize these people, and their ilk, as the enemy and need to be destroyed.
During World War II the U.S. Army invaded Europe, at great cost, and defeated the German army. No one “tried to understand” the German army; no one “felt for” the German army. Everyone was dedicated to the principle of destroying the German army.
Same was true when the U.S. Marines retook Pacific islands held by the Japanese. No marine “tried to understand” the Japanese, no Marine “felt for” the Japanese; everyone recognized the Japanese were the enemy and destroyed them.
We are in the same kind of battle today with the political left; they must be destroyed before they can destroy us. That means cutting off all funding, denying them tax exemptions, demonizing them to prospective donors, creating competitive organizations to consume as much of their funding as possible, and not quitting until they are completely destroyed.
A new organization, competing with Make A Wish for funds, that recognizes and supports conservative, and American, values, can be created and eclipse Make A Wish.
Make-A-Wish would have been better off claiming such trips were denied for legal reasons. I could imagine a kid getting accidentally shot or something on a hunting trip and the parents file a lawsuit blaming Make-A-Wish and everyone involved.
Conversation at its’ worst, using phrases like,”Filthy dirty liberals.”, or ,”The time has long since passed to recognize these people, and their ilk, as the enemy and need to be destroyed”.
What if some kid in Colorado read that and didn’t have your mature restraint…
Lets’s please try to communicate instead of ranting. It’s likely to accomplish more.
Despite the sarcasm, it does make sense for them to come to that conclusion.
Can you figure out why?
If you cannot, let me know and I’ll try to help.
But please be polite about it.
Harold:
No. These people need to be marginalized, and encouraged to emigrate to just go.
They do not hesitate to use unlawful means to attack conservatives. The last thing we need to do is be polite to these scoundrels.
Who are ‘these people’, citizens who disagree with you?
Please explain the ‘unlawful means’ to which you refer.
Without a diatribe…
I know that the typical rallying cry on the Animal Rights side is, “Who is going to grant the last wish of the moose?” (In the argument I heard, it was “polar bear”, but still…)
Probably not the bear that’s going to kill and eat the moose, that’s for sure. So why not let a dying human fill the same kind of role?
Is it okay if I can’t see the relevance of your post?
They didn’t not have a hunting trip because they, the foundation, are against hunting. I don’t think they made any statement addressing that. But they know their money comes from people with liberal attitudes, not from good people like you who value gun rights and hunting.
Say, I’ll bet if more people like you made donations, their policy might change.
How about it?
If you really want a change, and not a chance to have a hissy fit….?
I take the cry from when, years ago, the Make-a-Wish Foundation actually took a 9-year-old boy hunting, and Animal Rights Organizations expressed their disgust. Apparently, the Make-a-Wish Foundation changed their policy since then.
I do not consider my comment to be a hissy fit; merely a comment on the mindset that may have lead to the banning. (I was even careful to make it clear that Animal Rights Orgs, and not the Make-a-Wish Foundation, was guilty of this reasoning.)
I’m not sure if I care one way or the other, except to think that their policy is shameful, because hunting is a legitimate human activity. I’m glad that another organization is taking up the slack on this, though.
I think there is a huge difference between not paying for the young man’s hunting trip, and banning it.
As an Alaskan, I think an adventure like that would be awesome for a kid. I hope that instead of sitting around bitching, you guys would start your own, more conservative, Make A Wish-style organisation.
To quote PhilaBOR, “‘Wishes and More’ was formed for that very reason”.
FWIW, I think it’s fair to criticise Make-a-Wish for their change in policy; hopefully other organizations, like this one, will pick up the slack.