March 21, 2018

Two Totalitarians Debate Guns

It’s what’s wrong with everything!

I’m reading this morning an article in the Bangor Daily News about a doctor and a sportsman debating guns. It became clear that both debaters were totalitarians and showed definite signs of ignorance of facts.

Here’s one example of the what was presented in this so-called debate: “During my time at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I was proud of SAM’s support for successful legislation that took guns away from those served with temporary protection orders. At that time only permanent orders gave the judge the option of taking away a person’s guns…

“Unfortunately it is very difficult for the police to get authority to enter that person’s house and make sure the guns are gone.”

This sounds like the talk out of the fascist President Trump’s mouth when he said he would confiscate guns and worry about due process later.

The irony and hypocrisy of the debate appear when the other side of the discussions says: “The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but rather apply only if they do not deprive others of their rights.”

Both sides appear to want to disrespect a person’s granted and inalienable right to choose how they will protect themselves, one by taking guns and asking questions later (I guess that destroys any sense of innocent until proven guilty, i.e. Due Process) and the other by pretending that it is a just thing to deprive a person of a right so long as it fits conveniently into his narrative.

Ignorance in the debate shows in two ways. One, when one person suggests that gun ownership is all about hunting, and two, when the same person compares as equal a violation of a person’s constitutional and inalienable right to self-defense in the name of public safety to “lead in gasoline, sinkers and paint; mercury thermometers; dioxin in our rivers; asbestos in our ceilings and brakes; and smoking in public places, to name a few.”

I was reading another article posted on this website about social engineering, behavioral engineering for the purpose of belief engineering. In the Comments section was a post made about the Stockholm Syndrome. Defined as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor,” it is becoming more apparent that our society is loaded with victims (or willing participants) of this psychological phenomenon.

To fully understand how this applies to people, we must understand that “kidnapping or hostage-taking” can be either literal or figurative. There are many ways in which we are kidnapped or taken hostage over our free will. Feelings of affection and/or trust for those whose bent it is to diminish and eliminate our freedoms and individuality is being displayed on many fronts often without the awareness of individuals that they are lobbying for the rope that will eventually hang them.

To undergo debate that involves ceding rights as well as declaring that no right is absolute is eagerly playing into the hands of the hangmen. Denial of the intentions of the executioner is in and of itself a display of Stockholm Syndrome. We see this managest daily with trust for our government and the belief that this government has never, is not, and never will have tyrannical intentions toward placing you in slavery. We are slaves now and deny it. How much more difficult can it be to reach saturation?

Why are we even having this debate? To debate this issue is denying that anyone has an unquestioned right given them by their Creator to protect themselves, their family, and property. Willingness to remove that right is a call to place control over that right in the hands of a centralized authority. This now becomes a government-meted privilege, in which any authority with the power to parcel out rights has the same power to take them away. Our “syndrome” prevents us from that realization.

Is that what this is all about? Or is it just plain ignorance. Maybe it’s both!




Presumption of Innocence Has Been Missing For Decades

In America, there is no longer such a thing as Presumption of Innocence. Any high-profile crime allegation is tried in the Media and whoever controls the power determines a person’s guilt or innocence – often determined according to political ideology.

In our brainwashed circumstances, we unwittingly go out of our way to make sure not everyone is afforded their inalienable rights or the rights under the law of this law. It amazes me how many work toward their own destruction.

Yesterday it came out that during the Obama administration, the Department of Justice removed around a half-million names from the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS). That, of course, sent the Left into another tailspin but not as severely as one might expect because it was a Leftist administration carrying out the act.

According to the information I have been gathering, it was determined by Obama’s DOJ that anyone on the NICS list who was a “Fugitive of Justice” and were determined to not have crossed any state lines to flee from justice were dropped from the list. This interpretation was upheld in court (not that that matters anymore).

The Fugitive Felon Act makes it a felony to be a Fugitive From Justice and cross a state line. Because only convicted felons can be a candidate for the NICS list, those not considered to be felons were rightfully removed from the list.

I might remind people that simply because you have been labeled a fugitive from justice does not necessarily make you a convicted felon and have certain of your rights denied you. Anyone who skips a court date appearance is considered a fugitive from justice. If a person skips a court date because he or she must answer to the failure of child support, for example, are they to be automatically made a felon (a dangerous one)?

We have become so programmed to react just as the programmers want us to react, it is scary. Due to our blinded anger and hatred of almost anything with political strings attached, we willingly and gleefully destroy what is left of our rights under the law.

Is there no end to this madness?

Protection of our rights is so fundamental and necessary for any thoughts of Life, Liberty, and Property, that sometimes the act of protection places us in odd and uncomfortable situations. That is why Presumption of Innocence is so vitally important. When that internationally recognized right is completely gone, your individuality and the rights that go with it, are also no longer a part of your existence.

For eight years I didn’t have a lot good to say about President Obama (not that I do about any of them) but perhaps this is one thing he did that was the right thing to do.


The NRA Are Hypocrites

Perhaps doing a slightly better job of pointing out the insanity of the newly-signed bill in Florida than the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA shows their hypocrisy on their NRA-ILA website (surrounded by “Donate Now” buttons).

Evidently, the NRA completely supports parts of the new bill (as does the NSSF and others) including the blanket approval of actions to “educate” and “rat” on anyone “suspected” of having mental issues and ceding more fascist authority to the police to confiscate guns and ask questions later. As Trump stated, he preferred to confiscate guns first and worry about Due Process later. Nice…real nice! Leadership? Hmm!

This and a plea that states: “Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.”

Maybe the NRA should take a lesson out of their own playbook. If we lined up all the “gun control schemes” the NRA has been promoters and supporters of, it might make a fairly large book.

And it’s time to ask why the NRA thinks giving more power to cops to confiscate your property and at the same time allow governments to decide what is mental illness in the context of gun buying/ownership and what it is that is to be “educated” upon the people, isn’t supporting “gun control schemes” that impact law-abiding gun owners?

Wording is everything. The NRA states (above) that: “…oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.” (emboldening added) Are they saying that it is okay to support “gun control schemes” that impact gun owners and criminals together? Their historic record seems to indicate that, which in turn makes them an anti-Second Amendment organization. So, keep sending them money! MONEY-MONEY-MONEY!!!

The NRA also says that: “If we want to prevent future atrocities, we must look for solutions that keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”

According to how the NRA operates those solutions all involve giving up some of your rights. I guess they call that compromise. Either it’s a right or it’s a meted out privilege. Have we already forgotten that a previous administration in the White House believed that GIs returning from war who sought any kind of emotional assistance should be banned from owning a gun? Apparently so! What could possibly go wrong when Government decides your state of mind? Who decides theirs?

And is the NRA suggesting that we take away a person’s right to “innocent until proven guilty” and “Due Process” as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist; a fairytale that it will prevent further crimes by “mental” people?

The answer appears to be yes. It is obvious (to me anyway) that the NRA pisses on the Second Amendment and then tells people it’s raining, so why wouldn’t they be willing to offer to give up even more of your rights to the sacrificial lamb (money and power)?

But if forget. You think the NRA is your best friend. He ain’t much of a friend, but he’s the only one you have…right?


It’s What’s Wrong With Those Pretend Second Amendment Advocates

I tire of reading and hearing idiots say that they might realize groups like the NRA and the NSSF aren’t perfect but they are better than nothing. Are they? Is it better to be slowly eaten to death by ants than to just have it over with in an instance? The end result is going to be the same.

Perhaps some don’t want to talk about the realization that all of these fake Second Amendment groups are no different than any other group – they’re in it for the money. Yeah, that’s right. It’s the money stupid.

You see, groups like these can’t be real supporters of the Second Amendment because there is not so much money in it. The broader the base of their support the more money. So, instead of simply standing up and saying I have an inalienable right to choose how I will defend myself and my property and that choice might involve a gun, a hatchet, a golf club, or a Bible, they appeal to where the most money is. You know, those “reasonable” limits to what God gave you even before you were born?

They want your money…period!

Do you need more proof? Or is it more comfortable to just pretend they are on your side? Your choice.

Today the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) sent out an email asking that you contact Florida Governor Rick Scott and ask him to veto the recently passed bill that demolishes your inalienable rights and those granted to you by your government.

Yesterday I reported on the passage of SB7026, a bill that would place your mental status in the hands of some government agent who is, perhaps, more insane than you are. This bill would rebuild the school in Parkland where the latest shooting took place – I suppose to make sure to remove any evidence that might incriminate the bastards who actually did the shooting. In addition, insane propagandized automatons are going to “educate” more and more of you to teach you how to rat someone out you might think is mentally deranged because…GASP… they own a gun.

If you are in favor of this fascist government deciding whether or not you are insane, then you’ll love the idea that this bill gives YOUR heroes, the cops, more power to confiscate your property because some fascist/totalitarian has determined that you shouldn’t possess a gun. I’m sure while they are taking your guns, they’ll pause for a moment and gun down a few of you who they THOUGHT was armed and dangerous. You and 9/11 created them.

And there’s more, much more but I won’t bore you with such insignificant details because I know you don’t care. Trust your heroes!

So, back to the NSSF. They ask members/readers to contact the Florida governor for a veto because of the age restriction included in this bill. The new law raises the age to 21 as a minimum age to buy a gun. With that and a 3-day waiting period, what’s to complain about?

The NSSF writes: “The National Shooting Sports Foundation supports measures to increase school security and ensure that the mentally ill and prohibited persons are unable to obtain firearms; however, we strongly oppose any proposal to increase the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of long guns. Raising the minimum age to 21 to purchase a shotgun or a rifle for lawful purposes is an infringement on the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In the United States, you are an adult when you turn 18. Your constitutional rights are fully vested, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. This unconstitutional age-based gun ban would deny young adults their right to self-protection.”

Evidently, they are NOT, I repeat NOT, supporters of the Second Amendment or your right to be able to defend yourself how and when you choose. To the NSSF, evidently, all they care about is the age limit of when you can buy a gun. Is that because this would severely cut into the profits of the gun manufacturing industry who are probably heavy supporters (give gobs of money) to groups like the NSSF and NRA? Don’t tell me you never thought to that.

They tell us they support school security and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (they discount themselves of course) but instead of reading and listening to the lying, cheating, frauds in the Media and from these political groups, why not take some responsibility and go read the damned bill that just passed. There’s nothing in it that will do any of what they say they support…nothing! But the rhetoric and talking points of the bill appeal to a broader base of people = more money, more money!

Upon discovery, an honest person would then ask why is the NSSF only speaking out asking the governor to veto the bill because of the age restriction? Why aren’t they asking that the entire bill is vetoed and never brought up in the Florida Legislature or any other legislature in this country? It’s because if they did, they would lose the financial support from all those who simply love to give the government all their rights and turn them into meted-out privileges. Got to think about the salaries and retirement benefits.

If the NSSF and the NRA whittled their membership down to only the true understanders of inalienable rights and government-issued rights, there would be virtually nobody left to pay their big salaries.

Oh what, you thought it was only those Leftist (wink-wink) groups that paid out big salaries to help do the bidding for the Government? Ha!

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m pretty much completely fed up with the country and the world in general. I’m fed up with morons who thrive on their own efforts to hang themselves, to whittle away at their own existence, incapable of thinking beyond the end of their modeled noses. Soon Artificial Intelligence will tell them when to wipe when they are finished…you know what.

There are zero reasons to place an ounce of trust in any man-made government…ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. And yet, it’s exactly what you do. I just don’t understand.

But forget about what I say and write. You know better than I do. You have come to love and trust your servitude. Now live with it. Don’t look for me there.

Someone one day asked me what I had to fear because I supported the Second Amendment. I told them they had it all wrong (which is typical). I fear nothing. I have no reason to fear anything. “For the Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want….”

It’s not so much about my love affair with a gun or guns. I worship but only the True Yahweh who gave me a long time ago, real liberty, real freedom, and real rights. For now, I have to live in this world and as long as I do, I will do what I can to expose the wrongs, the fraud, the corruption, the evil, the Satanic, and protect those rights given to me by my Creator.

If my words have offended you that’s too bad. I would rather that you woke up than went down with the ship you are on.

None of us can protect our rights when we work so hard to give them all away.

I just don’t get it.



“The Truth is More Important Than Civility”

I was reading a Kurt Schlichter article sent to me from Townhall. It’s about civility and truth and the battle that rages between the liberals and conservatives (wink-wink). From my perspective, a perspective that is far from the “normal,” the author appears to use different terms to mean the same thing. For example, is there a difference between Left, liberal, and democrat? Definitely!

But I’m not interested so much to debate the ups and downs of this article, but only to address two statements made. To keep my discussion also in context with the article, let me say that the author, as I interpret things, is confusing a bit to me.  While preaching “civility” he also says that giving in to the demands of the Left should never happen and in the end says that if civility means surrendering, forget it. There seems to me anyway that there is great conflict between truth, civility, violence and the need to never back down from such things as defending one’s inalienable rights. More on this in a bit.

The first statement made is the following: “And truth is more important than civility.” 

As is usually the case, it’s important to examine the definitions of two keywords here – truth and civility.

An examination of “truth” from Webster’s shows us there is already confusion that comes from the meaning and use of the word. We find the number one definition as “the body of real things, events, and facts.” But we also find “…a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true.” Uh oh! And, …“fidelity to an original or to a standard.” Uh oh again! Then, let’s throw this in just to put the finishing touches to it – sincerity in action, character, and utterance.” (emboldening added)

Before we get into a further discussion about “truth,” let’s look at “civility” as also found from Webster. As the word applies to civilized conduct, Webster says the word means, “courtesy and politeness.” That’s pretty straightforward I would say.

It may not come as a surprise to anyone to discover there are real issues in the use of the term truth. Once again from my perspective, there is only one source of Truth (note the capital “T”) and that is what is found the Scriptures of our Creator, YHWH. Man’s “truth” as you can see, is confusing with indistinct, muddied and not well-defined meaning, as though it was crafted by lawyers. And that is much the root cause of many problems that exist in our society.

It is a simple task to call upon “truth” as something you have that nobody else does. But when you examine what man’s ideas of truth are you see that essentially it means whatever a person chooses to accept as their foundation of beliefs. Therefore truth and not Truth is a worthless instrument.

Some might ask why I didn’t choose to use the definition of truth as, “the body of real things, events, and facts.” We live in a post-normal world where there is no such thing that exists anymore that resembles real things, real events, or real facts. To deny it means you’re in serious trouble. I suggest help.

When we look at the original statement of “The truth is more important than civility,” what only exists in today’s world as a definition of “truth” tells us that it is pretty much impossible that any discussions or debates about anything can any longer be civil. When both sides, or multiple sides, claim to hold the truth, civility soon departs. Any form of civility is an exercise in compromising one’s well-crafted “truth.” Only politicians do that.

The second statement the author makes is this: “Civility is not a sign of weakness when a system of reasoned debate is in effect. But it is a sign of weakness, and will be taken as such by our enemies, when we cling to civility because we are too weak and afraid to admit the awful truth, that we are no longer a society ruled by reason but by power.

“You want a civil society again? Good – so do I. But the way to get it is not to surrender. It is to defeat those who want to crush you with lawless rulings by leftist judges, with economic warfare launched by woke corporations, and by the steady erosion of the rights your Creator granted you.

“If civility means submission, the hell with it.”

Putting this in the context of injecting man’s truth into a discussion of civility, shows how conflicting the statement becomes. Where both sides hold the “truth,” reasoned debate and thus civility, have taken a permanent vacation. The focus then becomes who will become the weaker of the two sides.

(Note: Were we ever ruled by anything other than power?)

In war, those more determined to win and never surrender are not operating within a theater of civility. No war is civil, whether physical, emotional or political.

The author calls upon the Right to rise up against the Left and not be weak by never surrendering, or allowing you to be “crushed” with “lawless rulings by leftist judges.” Is it that we should expect the Left to surrender or are we to beat them in a war? Remember, in the Left’s minds, just as the Right’s, they have dibs on the truth.

There is some truth in the statement that by the nature of conservatives, to live and let live, the Right has silently acquiesced to a more Leftist world/society. With constant cries to “go along to get along” and what appears to the Right as the only side that ever compromises (surrenders), perhaps the time has finally arrived (arriving with the onset of Artificial Intelligence which will become the new holder of man’s truth) that some on the Right see the end to their peaceful existence and are now just learning how to fight back.

It’s obvious as well that they are struggling with the concept.

So, what is the answer? The only answer is to seek the Creator’s Truth and to hell with man’s truth. It’s up to you. Government and party politics (Artificial Intelligence) are your enemies. It’s time to recognize and accept that.


SCOTUS Will Decide What You Can Wear When You Vote

Is there no end to the madness. Take me “far from the madding crowd!”

It seems Minnesota has a law the prohibits voters from wearing any “‘political’ apparel at a polling place.” This is further defined as, “…any t-shirt, button, or other item that identifies any political issue and even any organization that is known to take positions on political issues. Voters who wear AFL-CIO or NRA caps are told they must remove them before they can enter the polling place and vote. If they refuse, election officials take their names for possible prosecution and penalties up to $5,000. Lower courts upheld this law on the theory that government can ban all expression, besides voting, at a polling place.” (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

I thought this quite appropriate after Rattler Rider posted information as to “How the COTUS Bill of Privileges Can Be Used to Screw YOU.”


Coyote Snaring and the Difference Between Fascism and Democracy

An opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News laments any notion that trapping of coyotes by snares should be reinstated. As the old saying goes, it might be a cold day in hell before…..But that doesn’t stop a good opportunity to opine emotional, outdated, clap-trap in hopes of influencing the public opinion poll, and for what purpose?

But this isn’t really about the pros and cons of snaring. It’s about credibility or the lack thereof, and a person’s failure, it appears to understand the difference between living in a democracy and under the ruling of fascist dictatorship.

Some may know that I’m no big fan of democratic rule and am certainly opposed to Fascism. It is always said that democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Fascism, in a similar regard, is one person or government forcing both the wolves and the sheep to eat what they are told to eat.

Another misconception that exists in this post-normal world is the idea that political ideology runs along a straight line, a continuum if you will. I disagree. If you follow extreme Leftism far enough, it ends up in fascism. If you follow the far Right far enough, you’ll run headlong into the Left and fascism.

In the Bangor News opinion piece, the author attempts to make the argument that the money spent killing coyotes for predator control could have been better spent, “…passing laws to protect deer yards.”

For those not intelligent enough to understand this concept, let me explain. Whether you or I like a democracy or not, there are ways to go about promoting your fascist ideals. However, some who understand a democracy realize that it is far less dictatorial to select a method of predator control to salvage a deer herd than to take land and property rights away from private landowners. Those that promote bigger, more centralized government couldn’t care less about your property rights. Those who understand the value of property ownership and property rights see such calls as a direct effort to suppress those rights…far from the democratic rule.

But to a fascist, they want what they want without any care to the private citizen, or soon to be subject-slave should such displays of fascism, promoted by totalitarians selfishly demanding their own way regardless of the cost to others. This book has been written many times throughout history.

To suggest “passing laws to protect deer yards” is to demand that a landowner should be stripped of their rights to their land. Maine has ample (far too many) fascist restrictions placed on landowners now, that it doesn’t need another prohibiting them from doing anything with their land in order to protect the whims of misguided animal perverts and environmentalists who think it’s better to allow the suffering of animals and the waste of good, natural food, because a person fails to understand the realities of taking a life to sustain another. Fascism is the author of waste.

Maine’s landowners have done a damned good job over the years doing all they can voluntarily to protect what land they can for the deer and they should be thanked instead of asked to give more while those asking do nothing but demand more and more. That’s the foundation of Fascism.

History has shown us that fascism is only a mechanism or a tool to bring a nation under the rule of communism.

Every time someone says, “There ought to be a law….” there goes your liberties and here comes their fascism. Fascism is enabled by totalitarians. Eager and ignorant useless eaters, programmed to believe centralized government forced upon everyone equitably is justice, but is but one step away from fascistic domination, forced obedience and complete control over everything.

Think about that before you open your mouth with your emotional Leftist, Progressive nonsense. I guarantee you will not like your servitude.


I’m Not All In With This Man’s “Gun Culture”

I read this article this morning of a man describing his world of “gun culture.” I thought a lot of it was well presented, although I didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, including some of the “feelings” he gets from carrying a concealed weapon, etc.

What I disagreed with the most was what is on display in this country at present. Somehow the “gun culture” has taken the high road, while on the one hand promoting a person’s right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms, and on the other hand assuming the role of a good totalitarian in support of fascist government regulation and control over an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and a person’s choice as to how to do that.

The author writes: “Many gun-rights supporters were appalled to learn after the Sutherland Springs shooting that the military was systematically underreporting disqualifying convictions to the federal background check database. Under pressure, the military has added more than 4,000 new names in just three months. Similarly, law-enforcement failures or background-check failures that preceded, for example, the Virginia Tech, Charleston, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland shootings are spurring serious new consideration of the gun violence restraining order, a move that would allow family members and others close to a potential shooter to get in front of a judge to request that the court direct law enforcement to temporarily seize a dangerous person’s weapons. It gives ordinary citizens a chance to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something.

The intent here is understandable. What is seriously flawed in the circular thinking process is the belief that some Second Amendment restrictions affect only the lawful citizen and others don’t. This action requires that the True Believer fully trusts his government to do the right thing and protect us. How has that worked in the past?

I can’t be a part of this “gun culture.” I don’t like government telling me how, when and with what, I can defend myself.

The author is proud that the military has turned in more names of those now prohibited from buying and owning a gun, with complete faith and trust that each and every one of them was justified…by whose standards I might ask. Seriously, is there any valid reason that we should believe and trust the government to do anything that is right?

The writer has complete faith in his government that a “temporary” taking of a person’s property, deeming them “dangerous” (by whose standards I ask again?) is a good thing. And, I’ll bet this same person is the first to wonder why his inalienable right to protection is being systematically taken away and by piecemeal being ceded over to the Government for administration.

By God don’t we ever learn anything?


A Severe Case of Ignopidity

Ignopidity: An incurable affliction of being both ignorant and stupid and not knowing the difference.



By James Beers

The following WSJ article is an excellent description of how we have all allowed the British and our (EU & UN too) government’s declining value on human life to increasingly distort our culture and ultimately destroy all of our (once) “unalienable” rights.  Like the old saw about which was first, the chicken or the egg; unfettered government invariably assumes and then believes that we are “its” creation, rather than the other way around.

As you read the article, consider the parallels between British Health Care (BHC), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA.

–       All three were made into law to save something: BHC to save human lives; the ESA to “save” species; and NEPA to “save” the environment.

All three evolved into government programs that were soon unimaginable to those that supported passage:

–       A BHC that would seize parental authority and jurisdiction over their own children and then mandate the child’s death despite vigorous parental objections?

–       A BHC integrated with Assisted Suicide advocates and forcible terminations of select adult’s lives?

–       An ESA that would seize state and local jurisdictions and authorities and force deadly and destructive animals like wolves and grizzly bears on rural Americans despite their loud and vociferous objections?

–       An ESA that purportedly empowered federal bureaucrats to take “private property” of all sorts “without compensation” while enabling quickening expansion of federal landholdings as unmanaged enclaves of federal authority and jurisdictions at the expense of diminished state and local political influence and power?

–       A NEPA that has the singular goal of forbidding any and all natural resource (coal, drilling, logging, lead mining and smelting, grazing, hunting, fishing, etc.) management, extraction or use while enabling federal takeover of more and more of American life and private property?

–       A NEPA that actually became so arrogant as to encourage bureaucrats to imagine their own fantasy authority and jurisdiction over “all waters of the United States” that by including these water’s watersheds means all of the land mass of

The United States?

In summary, government power and ability to abuse “the governed” is ever present and must be watched and limited constantly.  It is always a primary hidden agenda behind every purported “good purpose” like “saving” human lives or wild species or the environment.

Government is like a tree in a suburban yard.  When the tree, like any government, goes unpruned and untended for too long:

–       It shades out the garden it was intended to protect from the wind.

–       It occupies the air space the kids used to play ball.

–       It kills the grass.

–       It erupts all over the ground with roots that make uses impossible.

–       It sends roots into the basement causing cracks and leaks.

–       It drops leaves into gutters that must be cleaned at great expense and risk.

–       It deposits branches in the yard and on the roof that you must spend time and money to clean up.

–       It eventually falls on the house in a windstorm killing the owners in their beds and then leaving a barren lot with roots everywhere, a wrecked home, and a stump.

Don’t let anyone tell you can’t or shouldn’t complain about government.  That is like saying anyone that does, hates trees and wants to live on a barren lot.  That is not the choice.  The choice is a sensible tree species, pruned constantly and removed when it begins becoming destructive before it creates an eventual disaster as your life on your lot becomes poorer and poorer and you eventually die in your sleep from a falling tree – just like BHS, the ESA and NEPA need either severe pruning (as a result of being ignored) or removal.

I vote for removal.

Jim Beers

18 July 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:

Link to article 

Note: Reading the article at the Wall Street Journal website requires a subscription.