Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

Washington state bureaucracy’s idea of “shoreline management”

Regarding:

Our Elected Officials

LAKE SUTHERLAND THEIR PROBLEMS IN DETAIL

 by Pearl Rains-Hewett

Posted 9/28/2011

About 8-10 people from Lake Sutherland attended the Jan. 26, 2011 Focus Group meeting (uninvited by the County).

They had several concerns, large white boats cruising slowly around the lake taking pictures of their homes, docks and property from every angle. When residents asked who they were, they said they were from the State.

 

They had airplanes overhead going around and around taking  pictures of their homes and property.

 

They had strangers trespassing and walking all over adjoining upstream property,  throwing white tapes in their only source of drinking water. When asked who they were, they identified themselves as Dept. of Fish and Wild life. (personally involved)

 

They had concerns about the impending SMP 200′ set back that would make all of their homes nonconforming.

 

They expressed concern with selective enforcement/retaliation.

 

I discussed their fear with another person that attended the focus meeting.

These were not just concerned citizens, these were fearful citizens. These people were afraid of what their government was going to do to them.

 

I made comment  at the next  Commissioners meeting, “When citizens of the United States Of America are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me”.

Call or write to your elected officials?

 

I did, 3 calls about Lake Sutherland homeowners on Jan 27, 2011, the day after the first Focus Group Meeting.

Who did I call in Olympia and leave messages for?

Steve Theringer (360) 786-7916

Senator James Hargrove (360) 786-7646

Kevin Van DeWege (360) 786-7916

Response to date April 30, 2011….ZERO.

 

There are 300 homes around Lake Sutherland. The problem they have been facing for several years was a rise of up to 2 feet in the level of the lake. Their docks were under water and their beach front property was flooded. The problem was a log jam in the outlet at  Indian Creek. They tried to remove the jam in small boats with chainsaws, ropes, tugging and pulling to no avail.

 

It took them a few years to get help from Clallam County, the DOE and WFDW.

 

I found this on line  WA State RCW 90.24.010 to help  LAKE SUTHERLAND property owners with one of their problems.

I gave copies to a Lake Sutherland homeowner at the public SMP meeting held at the Senior Center and sat in on a group discussion on Lake Sutherland.

 

RCW 90.24.010

Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

[1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

     Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]

Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW. 


Shoreline residents swamped by regulations

Please read this attached document sent to me by another CAPR President on the west side of the state.  These types of regulations are exactly what Dr. Michael Coffman refers to in his UN Biodiversity Map that he did for the UN program called the “Wildlands Project” that seeks to “re-wild” over 50% of the USA.  His map describes how people will eventually be regulated away from all waterways, even small creeks.  I have attached a copy of the Coffman Map so people can review the “restricted zones” that say “little to no human use”, and the “buffer zones” with “highly regulated use”. It took 40 years for them to start enacting these regulations, as they are now beginning to enact many of their old plans for Agenda 21.

 

Their methods are effective because they don’t force you out.  Instead they give you the option to stay if you will constantly comply with their barrage of new and outrageous regulations that continually ask for more and more from you each year.

Sincerely,

Rene’ Holaday

 

STORY FOLLOWS:

 

Shoreline residents swamped by  regulations

Premium content from Puget Sound Business Journal by
Aaron Laing

Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 3:00am
PDT

Storm-water runoff from public roads and highways is
the single largest source of contamination to lakes, streams, rivers and the
Puget Sound. Municipal wastewater is a close second, as large rain events often
result in sewage overflowing into our waterways.

Current regulatory efforts, however, put an undue
burden on shoreline property owners to solve a problem that is almost entirely
not of their making. To restore the health of the Puget Sound, regulatory
efforts need to focus first and foremost on the primary sources of pollutants.
While shoreline regulations play a role, burdensome, complex regulations will
undermine restoration efforts and divert funding away from much-needed upgrades
to regional storm-water treatment facilities.

The state’s Shoreline Management Act of 1971 requires
cities and counties to work with the Department of Ecology to develop shoreline
master programs (SMPs) to regulate the use of shorelines within their
boundaries. Under the law, local governments must update their SMPs according to
the schedule set by the Legislature. Many Puget Sound jurisdictions either
recently completed or are in the process of completing these updates. The
ostensible purpose of the SMP update is to ensure that shorelines have adequate
protection based on the best available science. Unfortunately, the result has
been the preparation and, in some cases, adoption of arcane, phone-book-sized
regulations that do little to address water quality issues.

For example, Bellevue’s draft SMP is about 350 pages
long and would effectively render much of the existing development on the shores
of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Phantom Lake and Bellevue’s many streams
nonconforming. That is, many existing homes and landscaping would be prohibited
under the new code. Depending on the scope of repairs or improvements,
homeowners could be required to remove landscaping and place deed restrictions
on their properties. Even mundane projects could require homeowners to hire
expensive consultants and go through a complex permitting process. The effect
would be to restrict efforts to maintain existing homes and yards. New
construction could be difficult, if not impossible, depending on the
site.

The problem with such regulations is threefold.
First, they place a disproportionate responsibility on shoreline property owners
to maintain and restore the health of our waters, while ignoring the largest
source of the problem: contaminated storm-water runoff. Shoreline properties
represent a virtual drop in the bucket when it comes to land area and impervious
surface area in the Puget Sound watershed. One need only drive over the
Interstate 90 bridge during a rainstorm and observe the storm water discharging
directly into Lake Washington to understand the source and scope of the true
problem. Overregulating the shorelines will not solve the problem of rainwater
washing harmful pollutants off of thousands of miles of roads and millions of
acres of upland properties that are not subject to such
regulations.

Second, costly, complex and unreasonable regulations
create a disincentive for homeowners to go through the permitting process that
might require reasonable mitigation, such as infiltrating storm water from roofs
instead of piping it straight into lakes and streams. Even worse, such
regulations invite costly litigation. This is wasteful on many
levels.

Third, the Legislature acknowledged that restrictions
could affect the fair market value of affected properties. The act thus requires
that county assessors consider the effect of such regulations in making tax
assessments. By adopting highly restrictive regulations, the assessed value of
shoreline properties is diminished. This, in turn, could reduce tax revenues
needed to upgrade regional wastewater and storm-water facilities. Ironically,
highly restrictive shoreline regulations could have the effect of worsening
water quality over time.

The Shoreline Management Act does not mandate such
results. The law calls for balance. Local governments and the Department of
Ecology should be guided by the law’s purpose and avoid adopting onerous
regulations that do little or nothing to address the key threats to the Puget
Sound.

AARON LAING is a land-use attorney at Schwabe,
Williamson & Wyatt. He can be reached at
alaing@schwabe.com.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/print-edition/2011/09/09/shoreline-residents-swamped-by.html?page=all

WRIA 19 Conservation Planning -Public Comment

WRIA 19 Conservation Planning -Public Comment
Shoreline Advisory Committee – Public Comment
RE: Public Testimony : What’s It All About Alfe

Since the beginning of mankind, man has primarily lived along the shoreline; whether it was the sea, the straits, islands, archipelagos, rivers, streams, or lakes. One way or another man’s wealth and sustenance arise from the land. Most of our food is grown or grazed or gathered from the shores, near shore, lowlands, plains, and flood plains. The flood plains have always been the most productive areas.  The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transfering ownership to the State,  and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

I have attended hours of data review in preparation for the WRIA 19 Conservation Plan. I have a few comments and observations. The first group of meetings was about marine drift cells within the reaches. A separate ‘Public Comment’ will be submitted on that issue.

On 7/28/11 the meeting was a review of extensive data on the river, stream, and waterways of the Peninsula in WRIA 19. The focus was on the brood salmon census/utilization in the waterway reaches and the surrounding flood plains, with emphasis on the flood plains. The data manipulation and collection were monumental. Huge numbers of hours and our limited tax resources were expended to support these efforts. Dedicated public employees have compiled this gargantuous project. My concern is not about the public employees it is about the plans, strategies, implications, implementation, focus, and predictable outcomes.

This whole process seems extremely problematic. The process is either a diabolically clever masterpiece or poorly conceived waste of public funds. The people paying for this work the taxpayers, seem to lack proper representation. My speculation is this mundane data collection and resultant policies will profoundly affect the private property owners, the guys paying the bills. On it’s face the plan seems all about the salmon. The number of salmon involved are very very small making the research statistically difficult to reproduce. Reproducibility and prediction are measures of the validity/invalidity. The significance of any finds are suspect. Despite this pretext of this data collection being about salmon with the land and land use incidental to the study; the premier issue is the land and future land use. If this were about the endangered and artificially depressed salmon stocks more attention would be given to factors directly impacting the salmon brood stock. In fact and in reality the nylon predation of the salmon brood stock as it enters the waterways is ignored. It is the law of the land that the Tribes can net the salmon brood stocks as they enter all of these waterways. The protected marine mammals and other predators cannot be and are not managed. Simple inexpensive interventions are not even considered or dismissed out of hand. In comparison this data collection has no beneficial affect on current runs and is far far more expensive.

Currently there is extremely limited or low use of the flood plains by human endeavors in the WRIA 19 area. Despite this lack of human activity salmon stocks are extremely low, far below carrying capacities. Again this is not about the fish; this is about the government taking control over land use. Not management of land use but control of land use.
The meetings have been interested in a odd way. Objectively review of a huge data collection was like reading the federal tax tables line by line. The fascinating part was watching the ‘true believers’ who were enraptured with working with this raw data. The job of saving the planet by this group (and hundreds like them) is consistent with a State sponsored religion. The doctrine of separation of religion and State is a prudent principle which this DoE and our elected officials need to observe.

Several times in the meeting the topic of large fish die-offs and kills created by the fickled actions and vagaries of nature were discussed. Again it was very clear this process is about land management not optimizing the fish survival and propagation. The fish are incidental.

The extremely large amount of data collected while interesting is a purposeful distraction and  poor investment of the public’s money. Overnight with one heavy rain, with one slide with one fallen tree, with breakup of an ice dam, with a log jam, with an earth quake, with a catastrophic forest fire all of the data or large parts can be rendered irrelevant. The only thing certain about this data is without human intervention in ten years most of it will be irrelevant.

If more fish were the answer there are many human interventions at a much lower price tag that would produce greatly increased fish stocks. (It would seem great care is being exercised to ignore fundamentals and inexpensive steps that would increase salmon stocks. See Pat Neal’s “Hatchery fish better than none at all” in the 8/31/11 article in the Peninsula Daily News page A9. ) Again this is not about fish. This is about rewilding the Peninsula. This is about global control of lands by government and taking away the utilization of land from humans. (See UN Agenda 21 or Google: “TakingLiberty – How private property rights are being abolished”.)

Despite the tremendous waste of resources of the government, this whole issue needs to  go back to the drawing board and be reviewed.  Although these have technically been  ‘public meetings’, this is a tightly controlled process with a predetermined outcome.

This convoluted over-reaching surreptitious process of transfer of property rights from the citizens to the State and the Rewilding of the Peninsula should be exposed and identified for what it really is. The DoE leadership need to be turned out, this squandering of public revenue halted, and the perversion of the SMA/SMP WRIA processes reexamined. We need elected leaders, public servants, who are acting on the behalf of the Citizens and the State Constitutionally principles of protections.

Karl Spees – Participant in the WRIA 19 process and the Clallam Shoreline Advisory Committee.

DCD – Public Input – Economic Impact 6/3/11

DCD – Public Input – Economic Impact 6/3/11
Economic Impact of the NNL and Shoreline Setbacks must be part of our plan or the SMP Update must be reversed or left the same.

Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution
Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) is an end-run around private property ownership rights. The No Net Loss of Function (NNL) is a Department of Ecology (DooE) surreptitious taking of private property rights under the pretext of environmental protection.

The 1976 Clallam County SMP (CC-SMP) was a bad implementation of the SMA; the 2012 CC-SMP Update implementing NNL policy will make a bad policy terrible. (The new shoreline setbacks, another taking, are not even mentioned at this time.)

Only with an Economic Impact Study will the degree of taking from private property rights and the cost of all of this DoE political activism be placed into proper perspective. The insane cost of this State sponsored ‘earth worship’ (substitute religion) will be partially realized. (A tremendous amount of public funds/moneys have been spent on environmental studies of questionable validity.) The implementation of the NNL without compensating the private property owners is unconstitutional (Please refer to Art. 1 Sec. 1 and other State Constitutional protections dealing with possession rights and public takings.)

The SMP Update needs to reverse previous bad policy until sound policy based on State Constitutional protections can be implemented.

Karl Spees, MD (retired) ‘Scientist’ and Environmentalist not Radical Environmentalist – Citizen Alliance for Property Rights – CC Rep.

SMP Testimony: Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and Feeder Bluffs

Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and Feeder Bluffs
The DoE has a Construct that they are using to impose NNL along the marine shorelines. It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’, bluff erosion which adds to the sand that moves up and down the beaches. Drift Cells have to do with sandy & rocky beaches between major points extending into the marine waters, usually these are solid rock masses. Littoral drift has to do with sand movement. The sand movement considers primarily the sand movement in the shoreline area. I have attended several hours of the DoE expert pontificating and presenting a highly technical, extremely detailed data collection on an issue that is immaterial in the big picture of things; it is a mere distraction. The bottom line is: We are so in awe of this ‘NEW SCIENCE’ that we ignore the fact that this is a pretext for transferring power and rights to use of our private property to the Government in order to save the planet.
I have an extremely strong background in science and am an amateur geologist as well as a Rock Hound. I have spent hundreds of hours studying the rocks of the Peninsula and on the beaches of the Straits and Pacific Ocean studying the tectonic and glacial bluffs and rock movement on the beaches. One heavy wind with the right wave harmonics, a storm surge, one torrential rain with saturated ground and with a heavy snow pack, a very large calving or bluff collapse, tsunami or earth quake would make all of this extensive data paid for with $100,000’s of our money immaterial overnight. If one eliminated the County Planning department and there were no regulation, it would not make any change in whether a spit forms or is eroded away by the fickeled powers of Nature. The Drift Cells are the equivalent of defining a famous painting by just depicting a blank canvas with the horizon line. It is an infinitesimally insignificant collection of overwrought data so narrowly focused as to make it irrelevant. We are supposed to give up our Constitutional protection in favor of putting our faith in this ’false religion’/ this precautionary delusion/ this overreaching incompetent governmental agency. The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors. The construct of Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and Feeder Bluffs would make a great subject an PhD thesis in the field of environmental studies. Giving this DoE Construct the power of law by our elected officials is like giving your car keys to an 8 year old or playing the Jew’s harp by a child during during the metropolitan opera. It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government that is out of control.
This ‘New (false) Science’ is a bastard construct of politics crossed with science. It is a perversion of what appears to be a legitimate cause. It is the construct of calculating globalists (Authoritarians) promoted by the gullible Earth Worshipers (Authoritarian Followers). For the Authoritarian Followers this is the ideal marriage, the union of (false) religion and State.
NNL and 200’ buffers need to be rejected out of hand. It is contrary to the principals of the Washington State Constitution and the best interest of the Citizens.
Dr. Karl Spees – Recipient of the Freshman Chemistry Award and the Senior Science Award from Emory and Henry College. Lifetime Student of Natural History and Amateur Geologist. Concerned Citizen

Public Comment: SMP Update – DoE Over-Regulatory

Public Comment
DCD – SMP Update – DoE Over-Regulatory

Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse. (Perhaps some of the buffer sizes need to be reduced and regulations relaxed.) Promoting public access which forces legal trespass on private property owners is also bad policy.

The DoE is an unelected State agency is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship. The ruling party and their county affiliates are working in a lock-step fashion to incorporated radical environmental philosophy into the law of the land. They are using pop culture, junk-science, false assignment of blame, and artificial crisis (some even fake) to take citizens’ rights, limit citizens use, and impose unnecessary regulations on private property. This is contrary the State Constitution. (Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.)

Prudent Policy is simple, balanced, and allows for reasonable impact of human activities on the land, water, and air. Dumpling raw sewage into a waterway is intolerable but even this is a relative problem. There are already a large number regulatory policies protecting our environment. We do not need NNL, new larger buffers/set-backs, or enlargement of our trespass laws.

Today’s Detroit city is a wasteland reflecting the impact of corrupt, incompetent, over-regulatory government policies on the environment. This is where the Washington State DoE and State’s Earth Worship Policies are taking us.

Today’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki are vibrant cities reflecting the culmination of private enterprise, private ownership, limited government, and the resilience of natural. Which policies should we pursue?

Karl Spees – Student of Natural History and ‘Scientist’

Public Hearing Citizen Input – Rigged SMP Update 5/29/11

Public Hearing Citizen Input – Rigged SMP Update 5/29/11
The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the citizens. It does fundamentally change the nature of citizens’ private property ownership rights. It is a vague non-scientific policy that is most consistent with a substitute religion. It is a surreptitious effort to take away citizens ownership and private property rights. It is much more consistent with Marxism and the Communist Manifesto than the Washington State Constitution.
The outcome of the new Clallam County Shoreline Update Plan has been predetermined. The SMP Update Advisory Committee is merely a sham to lend legitimacy to their pre-ordained decision.
1. The DoE makes the recommendations to the process and then accepts or rejects the elected officials plan. If they don’t like us rejecting their Radical Environmental Activist Plan, they will impose it anyway.
2. The two Democrat County Commissioners have a record of walking lock-step with the State’s Central Ruling Party. Commissioner Tharinger takes Radical Environmental Activism to the next higher level.
3. The Commissioners revealed their bias and closed the deal when they appointed ESA Adolfson, a demonstrated advocate of the Radical Environmental Activist Plan of the DoE. The Radical Environmentalist have a record of using predictable group dynamics to achieve a consensus that is contrary to the Citizens best interest but appears to be democratic. The ESA Adolfson just helped engineer and the imposed a carbon copy unacceptable SMP Update on Jefferson County. They are here in Clallam County to do more of the same. This is clearly a ‘selection bias’ with a predetermined unacceptable outcome.
4. $600,000 of our public funds/taxes/money are being used to put on a sham public hearing process. The outcome could be produced by a minimum wage filing clerk with a Xerox machine.
5. No doubt the Commissioners will make a few token concessions to distract the public from their disregard of the will and rights of the people. (There will always be a few vocal radical environmentalist who will applaud their misrepresentation of the people‘s Constitutional rights.)
6. It is my impression the Citizens Shoreline Update Advisory group will play an extremely minor roll in the Public Input process as compared to the County Advisory Committee. I am familiar with an outspoken radical environmentalist from San Francisco currently serving on that Committee, who brings his San Francisco value system to the table. I do not doubt that his radical environmental activism will carry great weight on that major source of ‘public input’.
7. The NNL Policy, expanded set-backs or buffers, and new forced access of the public to private property should be rejected out of hand.
Karl Spees – CAPR representative to the SMP Update Advisory Committee

Public Input to SMP Update – Tribal Adoption of SMP Update 6/1/11

Public Input to SMP Update – Tribal Adoption of SMP Update 6/1/11
The DoE’s and Ruling Political Party’s posture in respect to the Tribes, the environment, and the SMP Update is telling. (A weak but valid argument could be made that the SMP Update is a partisan overreaching land use policy.) The Tribes make up less than 2% of the citizens of Clallam County. On the SMP Update Advisory Committee (and most other land use committees) the Tribal representatives make up well over 2% yet are exempt from the regulations/policy. Most of the Tribal representatives are also on a payroll for their committee participation while the other citizens are overwhelmingly volunteers. (There are some paid governmental-agency representatives on the committee who arguably do not represent the interests of the general public of Clallam County.)
If the SMP Updates were about protecting the environment and serving the best interests of the citizens of the ’First People’s Nation’ it would be in the Tribes’ best interest to adopt them. The Tribes are exempt from the NNL Policy, the shoreline setbacks and buffers, as well as the trespass/public access policies. It is extremely unlikely the Tribes will adopt the SMP Update regulations with good cause. Fundamentally, the DoE’s SMP Update regulations/policies are not about ecology and the environment but about governmental taking of private property rights from the County’s citizens. To compound this arguably Unconstitutional policy it is being imposed along racial lines. Using racial discrimination to impose a land use policy is incontrovertible Unconstitutional. If the Tribes are unwilling to adopt the new DoE recommended SMP Update policies, they should not be adopted for all other Clallam County Citizens.
Karl Spees – CAPR 13 Representative on the SMP Update Committee

SMP – Public Hearing Input – Length of Document

2011-09-03

Hannah
Please add this to the Public Input for the SMP Update.
Karl

Public Hearing Input – Length of Document
My copy of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is contained in 48 very small pages. If place on 8X11 pages it would probably fit easily on 12 pages. The SMP I read was about 100 pages (8X11).
In contrast to the US Constitution:
1. The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
2. The SMP is contrary to/inconsistent with the Constitution
3. The SMP is poorly written
4. The SMP is poorly organized
5. The SMP is vague and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure
6. The SMP like the Constitution probably reflects its creators. The Founding Fathers were courageous, wise, and profound. The DoE staffers/radical environmentalists are flakey, shallow, and lack integrity.
If the State Agencies and current elected controlling officials wish to ignore the ‘will of the people’ and the State Constitution, why don’t they just shorten the SMP Update and say: Our authoritarian controlling government party will incrementally take your land use from your bundle of private property rights and keep the taxes the same. This will continue until the benefits of owning your property exceeds its value to you. Then the State will use your own tax money to buy your property which they have regulated into worthlessness. We won’t buy it right away until we’ve knocked down its value and you have supported us with your tax dollars for a while longer.
Clallam County needs to follow the minimum standards of the State Law and the spirit of the State Constitution.
1. Reject in total the NNL Policy
2. Reverse the SMP overreaching in regards to setbacks and buffers.
3. Provide access to the huge amount of publicly owned shorelines of Clallam County and reverse any trend toward forced public access on private property.
4. Quit spending an enormous amount of State revenue on this systematic assault on the private property rights of the State’s Citizens.
5. There needs to be an investigation and tracking of the huge amount of funds that are being squander on the pretext of saving the environment/the planet. (Private Property owners are this State’s most threatened species.)
Karl Spees – Student of Natural History & ‘Scientist’

Public Hearing Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day

Public Hearing Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day

Hannah

 

Please add this to my public input to the SMP Update.

Karl

Public Hearing  Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day

I see our powerful central government feverishly creating regulatory laws that curtail our freedoms. The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms. We the people and private property owners are the frog in the pot which is slowly being brought to a boil. The takers and destroyers continue their relentless incremental taking of our rights and freedoms. Do we wish to be like China or Russia? The SMP Update should be left unchanged or some of the previous ‘takings’ reversed.

It is Memorial Day. This is a time to reflect on how precious our freedoms and rights really are and what it will be like without them. Today we pay tribute to those courageous men and women who gave their all to secure our freedoms. Sadly we take those freedoms for granted and casually let them be incrementally eroded away. They are being stolen before our eyes by sneak thieves in our governments.

Please wake up Americans. Please act now while stopping this petty tyranny is easy. Please act every day to protect our God given fragile rights and freedoms. Do this on behalf of yourself and your family or your Country so that the sacrifices of our fallen service men and women will not have been in vain.

Karl Spees – CAPR Rep. to SMP Update Advisory