June 17, 2019

Government Fascists Flood Red Wolf Habitat Causing Removal of All Breeding Pairs

*Editor’s Note* – Below is the content of an email I received about a formal complaint filed with the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Interior and the Special Agent in Charge, Professional Responsibility Unit of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The complaint essentially claims an animal that government labeled a red wolf was released into the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (PLNWR) and was to be managed there under the Endangered Species Act, including the PLNWR habit.

The formal complaint alleges that Refuge managers decided to flood the habitat used by red wolves to make way for protection of migrating water fowl. Since the flooding was done, all red wolves have evidently vacated the Refuge at the same time red wolves were showing up on other Public Lands as well as private lands. Some of those wolves were shot and killed.

The complaint charges the actions of the red wolf recovery agents and managers of the PLNWR violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by deliberately causing harm and death to an endangered species.

I understand the complainants expose that appears to show deliberate disregard for the ESA – a Federal Law that private citizens are expected to adhere to. However, perhaps we should thank these agents for what they have done, even though they may have violated federal law.

In the first place the animal government fascists dumped in the woods, was not a red wolf – if the species even ever existed. At best it was a cross-bred, hybrid that resulted in a semi-wild canine that is of no use to anybody or anything.

But what should rise to the surface in all of this is the fact that fascist government agents are above the laws the rest of us are required to follow or we suffer ridiculous, draconian consequences the like of which was never intended by the ESA….or were they. In other words, Government does as it wishes and always will because there is no accountability or consequences for anyone’s actions. American fascist Government has morphed into an ends is justified by means form of power.

One has to wonder what is expected to be accomplished in filing such complaints when the leaders of this government are the biggest crooks in the world. Presently we have a president who disregards the rule of law, dictating his own ideals onto the servitude, while our elected officials go along with it out of fear of many things, money is not the least of them. We have a candidate for president that lies and cheats regularly, is a murderer and has been caught red-handed breaking laws in this country geared to protecting national security, and yet, nothing is being done about it. Yes, there’s a lot of lip service but WE continue to allow it to be.

Having pointed this all out, should we really believe complaining about two-faced, fascist government actions concerning fake red wolves is going to even be looked into? The only actions that will be taken will be those to save one’s ass.

Here is the content of the email:

K. A. Toomey, #640
Special Agent in Charge
Professional Responsibility Unit
US Fish & Wildlife Service
698 Conservation Way, G-13

Shepherdstown, WV 25443

Special Agent John Hast
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street NW – Mail Stop 4428
Washington, D.C. 20240

Mr. Hast and Mr. Toomey,

I would like to report the “take” of multiple endangered Red Wolves by USFWS as a direct result of USFWS significantly altering (flooding/saturating) the wolves’ habitat on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  As maps I present here clearly document, breeding pairs of wolves were once prevalent on PLNWR, the Refuge is now completely devoid of any pairs of wolves.

THE LAW

Section 3(18) of the ESA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

FWS regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/rules-and-regulations.html

See also:

Under §7(a)(2), no federal agency may authorize, fund or carry out any action likely to threaten or harm the existence of an endangered / threatened species (or harm their habitat).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/endangered_species_act_esa

Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/17.3

*This is very important.  It should be noted the nonessential experimental population of Red Wolves in North Carolina receives the full protection of endangered species status as long as it remains on the Federal refuges.

THE VIOLATIONS
In September of 2007, USFWS Refuge Manager Howard Phillips and USFWS Project Leader/Refuge Manager Mike Bryant submitted the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan stating:

“All refuge management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat for waterfowl, providing production habitat for wood ducks, and helping meet the habitat goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and State goals to protect and restore migratory bird populations.”
Page 270

*Please note the Red Wolves were promised this in 1993 by the USFWS Refuge Manager Jim Savery:

#1
#2
?

So what is the primary focus of the PLNWR?  Is it to be managed for ducks as Refuge Managers Bryant and Phillips state in their 2007 “Conservation” plan?  Or is endangered species management the number one objective as declared by USFWS Refuge manager Jim Slavery when the wolves were to be released on the refuge?

As I have learned, USFWS biologists say whatever suits their purpose at the time, whether it is to their neighbors or even the wildlife they are charged to protect.  I guess it was beneficial to be an endangered wolf in 1993, but better to be a duck in 2007.

To be clear, in the 2007 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan it is stated:Under HABITAT MANAGEMENT for 61,288 acres of pocosin.

Successful maintenance or management of the pocosin will require restoration of hydrology to hold the water table at the surface of the soil.
Page 76
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/PocosinLakesFinalCCP/PocosinLakes%20FINAL%20CCP%20Edited.pdf

From the 10/26/2007 Section 7 Biological Evaluation by USFWS Biologist Wendy Stanton for Watersheds 2 and 3:
“The hydrology restoration project would involve two steps; The first is to raise refuge roads two to three feet in elevation to maintain road accessibility and allow flooding adjacent blocks of land to surface levels or slightly higher to allow sheet flow.” “The second step is to install new and/or replace old leaking water control structures and culverts at every one foot change in elevation to manage water levels in the adjacent land blocks.”  Stanton further designated these actions relative to the red wolf to “not likely adversely affect species or habitat”

Now let’s look at the 2005 Section 7 Biological Evaluation signed by USFWS Refuge Manager Howard Phillips found on pages 159 – 161 of the USFWS 2007 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan:

#3#4

?http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/PocosinLakesFinalCCP/PocosinLakes%20FINAL%20CCP%20Edited.pdf

Yes, you are reading this correctly, USFWS is going to fully saturate (flood) 61,288 acres of the previously “ideal” red wolf habitat but this action will “not likely adversely affect the species”.  How is it even conceivable that saturation of 61,288 acres of the wolves’ habitat to soil surface level or above will not likely adversely impact this species?  I have learned that there is no room for common sense when it comes to this Red Wolf Program and its management or lack thereof.

Let’s see what this new saturated habitat looks like.  This is the western edge of PLNWR.  The western edge is the highest elevation of the refuge at approximately 18 ft above sea level.  In the mid 90s, I would often quail hunt this exact piece of land.  We referred to it as the old cow pasture tract. The previous vast pond pine savannas with broom straw and myrtle bushes held some of the largest quail and rabbit populations I have ever seen. Not any more.  Here is that land now:
#5
?
The pond pine forests have long been drowned by USFWS “management and conservation actions”.
#6?

Keep in mind the significant modification of habitat “take” violation described in the ESA:  FWS regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.

I assure you a wolf does not and can not den and rear young under water or even on land that is saturated to soil surface levels or above.  I further assure you the rodents, rabbits and upland game that once flourished on this refuge and served as a prey base for the Red Wolf are no longer here. This I can tell you and I am not even a red wolf biologist or refuge manager charged with the responsibility of protecting this species and determining the affects of this action on the endangered Red Wolf.

EFFECTS ON THE RED WOLF
I know USFWS Refuge Managers Howard Phillips and Mike Bryant promised to monitor and coordinate with the Red Wolf Recovery Team any adverse impacts of all this on their endangered Red Wolf.  But let me do it for them, since they obviously have not and will not.  I took USFWS 2003 and 2014 Red Wolf Pair maps and overlaid them onto the PLNWR map.  My findings are rather significant.

Here is a USFWS 2003 map of Red Wolf breeding pairs located on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  The green area is the PLNWR. Red Wolf pair territories appear in red,  coyotes in blue, and mixed pairs in black.

2003 Pocosin Lake Wildlife Refuge Red Wolf Map

#7?

In 2003, at least six Red Wolf pairs used PLNWR as part of their home territory.  If you assume many of these pairs had offspring in their family unit, you arrive at the previously contemplated carrying capacity of 15 – 25 wolves on the refuge.Now, let’s fast forward to 2014 after USFWS Refuge Management decided to manage the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge for waterfowl and not the endangered Red Wolf. Remember USFWS Refuge Management was charged with the responsibility to monitor any impact on the endangered Red Wolf and also to coordinate efforts with the USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Team to protect the wolf.

#8?

Yes that is correct, not a single pair of Red Wolves located anywhere on the PLNWR.

It should be noted that during this time period, the USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator reported directly to USFWS Project Leader/Refuge Manager Mike Bryant.  I want to understand why, as required under the Section 7 rules of the ESA, this adverse impact was not reported and acted upon.

IMPACT AND TAKE OF THE SPECIES
60 out of 64 gun shot wolves have occurred on private land as USFWS flooded the wolves’ protected Federal land and sought out dry land where they did not have the full protection of the ESA.  To add insult to injury, USFWS also adopted an internal policy to not remove wolves from private land as mandated by their 1995 Federal Rules governing this nonessential experimental population.

In a text book violation of the take provision of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, USFWS knowingly and willingly significantly altered and modified the protective Federal Refuge habitat (saturation/flooding) of the Red Wolf forcing it onto private land. The USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Team then refused to remove the wolves from private land, as legally required, knowing the mortality rate was far greater off the protected refuge.  Now as a direct result of these USFWS actions, the USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Program seems destined to fail as its population numbers have now precipitously dropped to the same number of breeding pairs (4) that the program started with almost 30 years ago.

Special Agents Toomey and Hast, please accept this as a formal complaint alleging take violations of the endangered Red Wolf as defined by the 1973 Endangered Species Act by USFWS.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

 

Share

Groups Fight Bureaucracy Over Endangered Bird That Was Never in Danger

Bad science and corrupt bureaucrats turned a beautiful migratory songbird that nests only in Texas into a 1990s terror that good science and concerned citizens are now fighting to exonerate.

The songbird is the golden-cheeked warbler and the fear it instills comes from its status as an endangered species protected by a bureaucracy that confiscates property, bankrupts businesses and imprisons decent people – and we now know that the warbler was never endangered at all.

Source: Groups Fight Bureaucracy Over Endangered Bird That Was Never in Danger | Heartlander Magazine

Share

Ronald Reagan: Executive Order 12630

Executive Order 12630–Governmental actions and interference with constitutionally protected property rights

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12630 of Mar. 15, 1988, appear at 53 FR 8859, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 554, unless otherwise noted.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposed on the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for the Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. (a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for which just compensation is required.

(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.

(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful governmental action. In furtherance of the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principles stated herein and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive department or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise taking any action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than May 1, 1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no later than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order: (a) “Policies that have takings implications” refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property. “Policies that have takings implications” does not include:

(1) Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modifying regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.

(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(c) “Actions” refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or Federal governmental actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy statements or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does not include:

(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder), but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
Sec. 3. General Principles. In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive department and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:

(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carrying out governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undue additional burdens on the public fisc.

(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a taking even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use or value, or of all separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if the action constituting a taking is temporary in nature.

(c) Government officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting public health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude by courts before their actions are considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose is insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.

(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays in decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being held to be takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compensation due if a taking is later found to have occurred.

(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whether the underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on the use or value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on the public fisc.

Sec. 4. Department and Agency Action. In addition to the fundamental principles set forth in Section 3, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when implementing policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department or agency requires a private party to obtain a permit in order to undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imposed on the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the use or action; and
(2) Substantially advance that purpose.

(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the restriction imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress.

(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making process that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the completion of the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary.

(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protection of public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal deliberative documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that are required:
(1) Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety risk created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
(2) Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of protecting public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
(3) Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private property are not disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall risk; and
(4) Estimate, to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the event that a court later determines that the action constituted a taking.

In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of the emergency action.

Sec. 5. Executive Department and Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that department or agency
.
(b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, stating the departments’ and agencies’ conclusions on the takings issues.

(c) Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regulation against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pending including the amount of each claim or award. A “takings” award has been made or a “takings” claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such awards made in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.

(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awards of just compensation entered against the United States for takings, including awards of interest as well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601.

(e)(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General shall each, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Budget shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are properly accounted for in agency budget submissions.

(2) In addition to the guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Order applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the specific obligations of that department or agency.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Share

Demanding Regulation and Enforcement

LoggingIt’s easy isn’t it? This American society has become so manipulated and brainwashed that we, without any thought, demand that “there ought to be a law,” also known as regulation and enforcement. It shouldn’t be so easy and isn’t when the demands for regulation and enforcement hit directly home. Odd how selfish people are when it comes to playing with other peoples’ liberties, property and rights while attempting to protect their own. Because we’ve been bred and molded into non thinkers, we fail miserably in finding understanding as to the consequences of demanding regulation and enforcement. We somehow believe demanding of others’ livelihoods is good for ourselves. Have we that right?

Here’s an example. In a recent editorial in a Maine newspaper Online, a writer says that logging is “damaging Maine’s natural resources.” At issue seemed to be the writer’s concern over the state’s deer herd and the threats from loss of wintering habitat for deer because of logging. The writer states: “If the State of Maine is serious enough and has the guts to regulate and enforce effective laws to preserve our natural resources, not ask for volunteers, we can do that.”

Yes, we can do that but what is the right thing to do? The writer suggests that all it takes is “guts” to tell a landowner they can’t have what is rightfully theirs. But people somehow don’t believe it is rightfully theirs. They think they have a right to tell you how to live and how to make your living.

If you were a rancher or farmer, is all it would take would be “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you out of ownership of a barn because perhaps the smell of manure bothered some people? After all, it just takes guts. If you owned a home with a back yard swimming pool, would it be acceptable to “regulate and enforce,” with “guts” no less, for you to be prohibited from having a pool because someone thought it dangerous? What if you had a large tree in your yard that you were afraid would fall and damage your home. All it would take is guts to “regulate and enforce” you into not being able to cut that tree because it might have “historic” value….or something. And so, you have a title to 50 acres of land where your home is built. The government determines that 40 acres of that land is habitat for a rare plant and so, you are prohibited to use or sell that land in order to protect that plant. All it takes is “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you from what is rightfully yours.

Doesn’t this actually define an illegal “takings?” How do we, as a people, a government, have the right to take property from somebody without just compensation? With “guts” we can simply “regulate and enforce” landowners to stop harvesting timber that MIGHT be detrimental to the proliferation of a large enough deer herd so that residents can hunt them.

Isn’t to have the “guts” to “regulate and enforce” nothing more than fascism? If not fascism, certainly totalitarianism. We now live in a totalitarian/socialist state. If we can’t get away with “regulate and enforce” or illegal takings, then, if Maine is so determined that the reduced deer herd, the effect of which is part of a struggling economy, is so important, then landowners should be justly compensated for a “taking.” As such, all residents will endure an increase in taxes to pay for the takings…each according to his ability, each according to his need…and we must also consider the ramifications of price increases due to shortages of resources – supply and demand.

In reality, the landowner isn’t the landowner at all. He holds a piece of paper that allows him to pay taxes on it and to do with that land ONLY what government dictates him to be able to do. We continue to convince ourselves that we own land and can do with it what we want. The short of it is, it doesn’t take “guts” at all. It only takes government to demand and take. Citizens don’t understand that when they demand “there ought to be a law,” they are doing the bidding for the government against the people.

While citizens are making their demands to “regulate and enforce” their own ignorance and selfish greed prohibits them from a deeper understanding of the consequences of such demands. It will be only a matter of time before that demand to “regulate and enforce” comes around and bites them squarely on the backside.

I began this article stating how easy it was to demand laws. Those laws on demand are for somebody else not you, is our attitude. That is our mindset and that is why it is easy. Instead of thinking of what those consequences will be WHEN your turn comes around to be regulated and enforced upon, it’s easier to demand if of other people. And, more than likely, your demands are based upon false information you have been spoon fed that causes you to think “there ought to be a law.”

There ought to be a law that prohibits people from demanding “regulate and enforce.” Ha Ha

Share