Endangered Species Act: A Barrier to Progress?

The endangered Species Act, is the legal framework, which environmental groups rely upon to delay or completely block, many human favoring commercialization projects. This law taught as scientific fact to most grade school children, is based upon the premise that nature’s environment is a fragile, unadaptive process, which must be protected from unwanted human intervention. It matters not that this premise is inconsistent with the liberal sacred truth of “evolution”. Roll over Charles Darwin! The left advances this new tenet to its doomsday religious cult, Biome fragility and food chain stasis! Adaptation is the real myth, they contend!

Suppose that sacred “mother earth” will survive without this 1970’s vintage artificial construct foisted upon us and dressed in legal prose with supposed noble intentions!

Suppose sacred ancient greek mother god Gaia is an idol, worshipped only by foolish global elite liberals? Itself an accepted, but now nationally adopted, state religion.

Is this a thinly veiled constitutional work around by the non Christian liberal left?This could be a true state established religion promoted by environmental activists.

What would happen, if this idol worship was eliminated? Our nation and the world would survive and advance through human ingenuity. Of course as in all of human history, the pendulum may swing too far, paving the way for the liberal elites’s next resurgence, but the World would survive! Humans make mistakes as with this monstrosity, but humans and our planet will survive.

Fragility is a human construct, born of timid decision makers afraid of their position in society. It is 1070’s policy and is incompatible with the liberal view of how the species advance!

Real decision makers understand that knowledge is a journey, yet to be completed not the current consensus of supposed scientific experts. Yes, some errors will be made and my seem insurmountable or difficult to bear, but so is the dearth of human innovation and liberal elitist religious fervor contained in this act. Imagine all the inventions not proffered because their implementation would be too difficult and blocked by activist judges. Where could we be absent these Activist handcuffs?

So, I recommend allowing more decisions be made by market forces. Our environmental biome simply isn’t frail! The earth has survived even the terrible decisions of the past. Fragility is an unsupported new concept, even contrary to the liberal global elites’ views on “ evolution “.
It’s time to remove the social governor imposed upon human innovation by adoption of global fragility! This isn’t advocation of “ trashing our environment “, rather removal of innovation killing judicially imposed environmental fragility. Time to rethink the endangered species act. Toss out that 70’s documentary “ The China Syndrome! Time to trust that humanity will act in innovative ways and find solutions to problems both created and inherited! If error is made, it can be corrected!


Perhaps more “ turtle preservation methods” are needed? Will there be insufficient “ turtle advocates”? Perhaps because of human short sightedness. Perhaps because turtle adaptations will provide for survival or perhaps the answer is extinction? Both are “ natural “ processes in the liberal religion. Yet the stalwart liberal knows better! He can see all potential outcomes!

so, I contend the endangered species act ought to gain its historical place upon the “trash pit” along with its 70’s counterpart, the now famous documentary of the left “ the China syndrome”.

The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether children of illegal immigrants are automatically U.S. citizens, leaving the current interpretation unchallenged. This is per an AI that in a prior question lectured me about birthright citizenship! So we have only speculation!

Playing with statistics and sound bites to secure your program or project!

Consult the latest poll. A poll is only a snapshot in time. Sometimes polls render relevant snapshots that can provide true voter insights. Others are simply fodder for an 24/7 news media in need of the latest irrelevant story. Polls at this time are relevant only to the talking heads seeking a seemingly relevant storyline.

Everyone plays the game the same, but it’s simpler, when your proposing new program spending that has some human suffering attached as visible proof of the existence of human need. You only have to disguise the level of need so that if it is a small group and could be addressed by a charity or possibly the proposal will not be a good expenditure, it still has victims. So , if it can save but one life, approve it. It’s also easy to attach favorable expectations to the would be nominee.
If a problem is too small, only state the national number of instances. Remember the mantra, if it saves a single life, possibly, you must approve. Of course with a program there will still be unreached, simply don’t ever mention that number.-A country of 330 million will have a large number of instances of any perceived problem. No where near the largest total of fatalities or victimization found in other circumstances but a large number because we are a large country. (Witness Covid fatalities and Biden’s use of numbers).

Since we all adopted government as our salvation, we have actively sought government solutions to almost all societal issues! Many suburban Republicans ( especially suburban Republican women)will rally their support for any problem solving program because someone is in need somewhere within our country and we are so rich, there can be no need! It’s not fair! Never use cost benefit analysis, always let emotions dictate policy. ( Never let available victims go to waste)( This is the mantra of government salvation syndrome

So if a critical thinker, always ask for the percentage affected by the problem. Can an existing charity or non government group effectively manage the problem? Is there even a real need or will to have a program for this perceived problem? Ask what percentage of the problem will remain post legislation? If the answer to either question is extremely small percentage or if others could handle, there is no need for government solution.

Gun control is a great example of this situation at play in the real world. No one believes we can physically remove even most guns.

Gun laws simply don’t solve the violence problem! There will always be a non compliant or “loose” neighboring jurisdiction say the proponents. ( witness the city of Chicago). Sometimes free people may choose badly and terrible consequences can result.

Bad choices will be made even with strict gun legislation. Is the loss of freedom or inconvenience ( cost ) worth the cost? Then ask the would proposed “ common sense gun laws” have stopped any mass shootings? Are gun control states less violent? Are existing laws even enforced. Will existing guns simply go away? Jot down your answer. Then decide. Remove your emotional bias!

Journalism will not return until reporters supply the who, what, where and when. Why and how are supplied by the reader only!

When I was a youngster (long long ago ) I went to college.  “Yes,   I even graduated with a BA then on to get a law degree at night”.  one class I explored as a undergrad was journalism. Even back in the Stone Age, there was too much homogeneity in network reporting. We in our class monitored national broadcasts.

There was a difference. How was there a difference and more importantly why! Homogeneity in network reporting in my day occurred because reporters as well as news editors shared a common filter. Everyone views the world through their own filters.( common life experiences translated similarly)There were checks on opinions. Opinions were for the opinion page, not news!  News answered the questions, who, what , where and when. Why and how were supplied by the reader after critical thought!

The educational schools in the 1970’s decided that education was about physical/ behavioral differences, and abandoned all checks on journalistic reporting. So, we hire based upon skin tones and sexual preferences and of course gender. ( Back when we thought we could tell. )

Additionally, enter the “New Liberal Elite”. Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. Michelle told us everyone should go to college! How Sociiety produces needed goods and services is tomorrow’s question .

They extended the definition of diversity to cover only those, who accepted the “new world views”. Among these enlightened liberals were militant feminists. These individuals not only believed in female equality , though not true equality, but sameness of outcome for all.
Utilizing Clintonian equality, only 4+ 0 = 4.  Females are bumpy boys in search of their place in society. Transgenders are victims!  Most blacks lack fathers in their home and are economically disadvantaged leading to an  indefinite period of universal black subservience.

This new order led to a predominantly new era in the female educational establishment. Education changed to emphasis on only memorization.  Since all believed in equality of outcome, there was no need for critical thought. Any deviation was educational heresy!

News was easily reduced to one sided sound bites. Why question? There can be only one answer.  These soundbites were perpetually repeated without regard for the who, what where and when they were based upon.

Why the deviation in an article about news? Understanding where we are requires understanding how we got there.  The movement was incremental.  It required the public’s buy in on each step! We blindly accepted!  Led by suburban republican women and a beaten down Beta Republican who male population.

It’s time to return news to asking, who what, where and when. Time for push back against lies perpetrated by news media. Who was killed on Jan 6? What were the causes of death. When did they die? Democrats have an answer that includes a stroke victim.Republicans say two. Both members of ”the mob”. We should know answers to these and other questions.