By Cindy Alia 1/22/22
Admittedly, butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth. As a former proponent of civility, I am chilled by the new social awareness within certain enclaves of new thinkers, our far-left, and their inability to recognize reality, use common sense in understanding consequences of their beliefs and actions. I have come to realize these people clearly lack the wherewithal to understand what civility might be as they further seek to apply their disdain held for all societal norms which has pushed them into an abuse of all civilized methods, even while using the traditions long established in this state. How contradictory that tradition based on civility is one they still cling to, yet how else to improve the thinking of those accused of employing the old awareness, the wrong think, except by the force of law?
Two bills introduced and testified on last week are point in case. House bill 1838, is one that would establish land takings and the ruination of property ownership and farming and food production in the state, ignoring certain consequences for food security, while the other, house bill 1851, would unperson wrong thinkers while establishing incongruous identities some hold that belie reality. What these two bills have in common are their sponsors who inhabit that world they yearn to establish or create where reality and the wished for imaginary world collide.
House bill 1838 Protecting, restoring, and maintaining habitat for salmon recovery. Sponsored by these far-left state representatives Lekanoff, Fitzgibbon, Bateman, Berry, Macri, Ramel, Simmons, Pollet, Harris-Talley, calls for establishing riparian zones throughout the state that could not be used, be taken out of production, would be restored to an agency re-imagined native and environmentally useful state, and on a case by case basis be judged scientifically by only one written source of science, or the science imagined by state agencies, all under threat of extreme fines and the outlay of a property owners financial resources to be matched inadequately with “government funds”.
House bill 1851 Preserving a pregnant individual's ability to access abortion care. Sponsored by these far-left state representatives Thai, Macri, Fitzgibbon, Bateman, Berry, Cody, Duerr, Peterson, Ramel, Santos, Senn, Simmons, Chopp, Slatter, Bergquist, Valdez, Pollet, Taylor, Ormsby, Harris-Talley bizarrely calls for abortion rights to apply to all persons who think they are pregnant to have the right to an abortion. Even if one is pro-abortion as these representatives must be, one should be able to realize all people cannot become pregnant and require the right to an abortion, and the state of pregnancy is not truly imaginable. Those who think otherwise are chastised in bill language in these words: The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes. Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.
What do HB 1838 and HB 1851 have in common? Simply, the bills lack clarity and an understanding of on the ground reality, but also the commonality is based on the sponsors of the bill, Fitzgibbon, Bateman, Berry, Macri, Ramel, Simmons, Pollet, Harris-Talley
The fact that more representatives were eager to put their name to 1851 abortion rights, than they were to put their names to the takings in 1838 proves there exists at least some form of cognition, however hard it may be to appreciate or understand.
The point is, if the leftists in the state house are willing to sponsor and imagine the concepts in 1851 and apply it to our legislative processes, why would it be assumed that 1838 would have more cognitive legitimacy than does 1851? The problems are; same sponsors, similar lack of common sense, lack of reality-based thinking, practicability of implementation, and consequences of legitimizing the concepts in law. In the reading of each bill no evidence can be seen to suggest that there has been a great deal of cognitive awareness applied to the concepts, demands, enforcement schemes, and consequences that would be enshrined in either bill if passed into law.
There is no established factual basis for either bill, both bills deny both the truth or reality of life in Washington state, both bills seek to provide administrative agencies powers that they do not hold, and both bills deny the societal consequences of actions they wish to apply through legislative edict. Should these reality seekers in their narrowed field of attention be condoned in their extraordinary efforts to normalize what does not exist? Shouldn’t their efforts to create an agenda and narrative be rejected as the officially endorsed truth, ridiculed? We the people must choose reason over mindlessness if a productive, useful, stable, functional society is to continue to help, feed, and nourish mind and body of our fellow citizens.