Posted by
Michael C. Sheahen on Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:05:02 PM
The question is asked: Should grass lawns be banned in water restricted areas?
In other words: Should our Constitutional private property rights be "banned in water restricted areas"?
Of course since the answer to that second question is "No” the answer to the first question is thus also of course "No."
"Oh', somebody says, 'but what about the environment? What about precious resources like water?"
Well, while you're at it, what about the Two-legged, Socialist Bovine Scatology-speaking Constitution-dodgers?
What are the “Two-legged Socialist Bovine Scatology-Speaking Constitution-dodgers”? They are those who would “make exceptions” against our Constitutional private property rights which are indeed Constitutional or they wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Indeed “We The People” see and hear those critters speaking their “Bovine-Scatology-ese”, “in the name of the environment/precious resources” of course, at both the unfortunately apathetic majority of citizens and too many misled voters, making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution and our Constitutional rights and freedoms, which include our private property rights.
The fact is, as much as they hate to hear it, the last time “We The People” checked, we’re supposed to be a nation based on “the rule of Constitutional law” instead of a nation based on “making exceptions”, “in the name of the environment”, or anything else!
Of course there both have been and are those who insist on “making (and/or being) exceptions”, such as the late former President Richard Nixon who had to resign to avoid being Impeached for trying to make and be an exception in connection with one thing ("Watergate”), and there is a certain recent former President from Arkansas who made a habit of doing so, and ended-up being Impeached (convicted) by the House of Representatives, which is what the House has the Constitutional authority to do. Note: He was indeed Impeached by the House (which means "convicted") on 4 counts of violating Constitutional laws, including perjury and subornation of perjury, but then the Senate simply wasn’t equally faithful to those laws and the principle of "equality under the law" (instead of "making an exception for him" as if he is "above the law") enough to “remove from office” accordingly, albeit it is the Senate’s Constitutional authority to decide whether or not to “remove”).
At any rate, you should already be at least beginning to see that any "exception making" for any "Yes" answer to the question at hand is Unconstitutional, in violation of what are our Constitutional private property rights; those rights are not there to be a “pick and choose buffet of exceptions to make” out of them, and therefore the answer to the question at hand is indeed “No, grass lawns should not be banned in ‘water restricted’ areas”.
The fact of the matter is that our Constitutional private property rights are most certainly not a “Pick and choose buffet” for “making exceptions” whenever it suits the fancy of politicians and others who would so violate them, including certain politicians and others who would do so (quote) “In the name of the environment” or any part of it.
Further, even I have experienced how such governmental/bureaucratic violators operate, such as in a certain Southeastern State where I resided for most of my life, where their actions and the consequences of their actions are are indeed prime examples of the Unconstitutional, anti-private property attitudes and efforts of certain politicians, bureaucrats, and others, throughout the U.S.
How so? Ok, first some pertinent clues about that certain Southeastern State, as pertains the question at hand:
Even the weather in that certain Southeastern State is so notoriously wet and hot ("humid and hot"), year-round, that it truly has practically no "seasons" other than what could be called "hot, and hotter"; most of the Southern half of it is virtually covered by water in the form of swamps and wetlands; that State also features the 2nd largest freshwater lake wholly within the Continental U.S., and of course lakes are filled with water; that State also features water at more than one level underground; that State leads the Continental U.S. in lightning strikes; of course lightning strikes are not associated with sunshine but are instead associated with rain; so indeed that certain State, especially the Southern half of it, has been known to surpass, and is more than capable of surpassing “the rainy Northwest (Oregon and Washington)" in both rain and rainy days, and so altogether that certain Southeastern State has at least a bit of a tendancy to feature more water in all its' forms, along with associated lightning strikes, than any other State except Hawaii.
However, about eleven years ago or so in the Southern part of that certain Southeastern State, certain “water control” bureaucrats imposed so-called “temporary” (insert laughter here) water restrictions because of a relatively appreciable drought. Result? Dead lawns and greenery everywhere! Note: Why "insert laughter" between "temporary" and "water restrictions"? Because, as is practically always the case, the nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a governmental/bureaucratic “program” (power-grab), all too often including "temporary water restrictions", as shown in this case.
So then of course the only people who could practically counteract the deliberately ridiculous “watering hours", etc, were those people with their own built-in sprinkler systems on timers, including many of those same "water control" bureaucrats, and you can bet they did so!
Then, significant rains soon came.
However! What did those same “water control” bureaucrats do? Lift, or even "ease" their so-called “temporary” water restrictions? No.
Instead, they immediately pumped all they could of that water, including what fell on that second largest freshwater lake wholly within the U.S, straight out to sea!
Of course they tried to keep what they did a secret, but “word got out anyway”, as the saying goes; so then of course they denied what they’d done, and got away with it as such people can do when they have a vested interest in keeping their position, etc, and enough people believe what they say.
Then, to top it all off, those water control bureaucrats went ahead and declared their so-called "temporary" water restrictions "permanent"!
Very soon afterward the "normal" rains returned, but of course those water control bureaucrats had already declared their "temporary" water restrictions “permanent”; then, lo and behold they let the water levels rise to the point where numerous animals, such as those in the swampland which nearly covers the whole Southern part of the State, drowned; then, because of all the "bad press" they got for that one, they actually managed to lower the water levels enough to stop the drowning, never mind it was already too late for all the drowned animals, and yet, all the while, they kept posing and preaching about "precious water resources” of course.
Thus, private property rights aren’t the only things “water control” bureaucrats get away with “drying up” and "drowning", etc, "in the name of precious water resources”, of course!
Now lest anybody try to say "Well our water control bureaucrats don't do that where we live", well, do enough real honest-to-goodness investigating and you will find that your Constitutional rights, including your private property rights, don’t exactly escape similar and other governmental, bureaucratic, and other politically-driven "environmentalist" abuses and attacks.
The fact is that our private property rights, along with others of our Constitutional freedoms and rights, are indeed under persistent abuse and attack, including through the question at hand, in the name of various things including (but not limited to) “precious water resources”, etc.
Such are examples of the fact that certain politicians, bureaucrats, and others do indeed try and, unfortunately, do get away with their abuses and attacks against our individual rights and freedoms, including our private property rights, which are all an integral and indispensable part of our both basic human and Constitutional freedoms and rights upon which our country is Constitutionally founded and based.
So the answer to “Should grass lawns be banned in water restricted areas?” is no, because that is the only answer in keeping with our rights and freedoms, including our right to choose what to have on our property.
Besides, whenever any of us end-up residing in any “water restricted area”, of course we don’t want our lawns covered by dead grass.
Therefore of course we may respond pursuant to our both basic human, individual and Constitutional freedoms and rights, which include our basic, human, individual and Constitutional freedom and right to choose grass and/or anything else with which to cover our lawns, and our taking remedial action against any governmental/bureaucratic efforts to the contrary, since we want neither our both basic human, individual and Constitutional freedoms and rights violated by government or anybody else, nor our lawns covered by dead grass.