Law would give Hawaii government unprecedented emergency powers

Hurricane Iniki
article top
Hurricane Iniki
Hurricane Iniki

HONOLULU — Hawaii’s governor and four county mayors may be granted unprecedented emergency powers during a crisis, such as a natural disaster like the 1992 Hurricane Iniki that hit Kauai and Oahu or a terrorist attack.

The bill, HB 849, is designed to bring Hawaii’s emergency management plan to federal standards. It renames the state civil defense agency the “Hawaii Emergency Management Agency” and houses it under the state Department of Defense.


The bill also adds to government bureaucracy, creating a state emergency management director position and a council on emergency management to advise the governor. Mayors will be granted the same power as the governor in declaring an “emergency period.”

Some language in the bill worries Senate Minority Leader Sam Slom, who is troubled about how it would affect privacy and property rights of Hawaii residents.

“My main concern is the bill gives expanded powers to the governor and mayors without checks and balances or oversight,” the Republican said. “The definition of emergency powers and where they come into play is vague and overly broad.”

In one section of the bill, the governor and the mayors of Kauai; Maui; Hawaii; and the city and county of Honolulu, encompassing Oahu, are authorized to use all services, materials and facilities owned by partnerships, corporations and small businesses, including media outlets and technology companies.

In another, the governor and mayors have the power to prevent “hoarding, waste, and destruction of supplies, materials, commodities, accommodations, facilities and services for equitable distribution.”

The governor also can assume operation of privately owned “critical infrastructure.”

“If the government declares you are in possession of harmful materials or are hoarding, or creating a dangerous situation, they could probably take whatever they want, including firearms, just like the government did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005,” Slom said.

William Anonsen, who sits on the Civil Defense Advisory Council, believes the pending legislation updates Hawaii’s 60-year-old emergency management law, developed after World War II to address threats of nuclear attack threats and civil unrest.

State Adjutant General Darryll Wong, who serves as the director of state civil defense, supports the legislation.

But Edward Teixeira, who served as former vice director of civil defense October 1999 until October 2011, cautioned lawmakers about the current draft, calling the legislation a “rushed and desperate attempt to reform the state civil defense system.”

“The proposed bill falls short of making a real change to the state civil defense system, a change that requires a bold and justified transition from the federal civil defense laws of the 1950s to the 21st century and beyond,” Teixeira said.

Teixeira’s main concern isn’t so much about unprecedented powers but more about how emergency management would be structured.

“We will continue to retain the state emergency management agency under the Department of Defense and the state adjutant general or Hawaii National Guard. This is an outmoded Cold War concept. The Hawaii state Legislature should take the initiative many other state legislative bodies have taken long ago by placing their emergency management agencies directly under their respective governors,” Teixeria said.

The bill passed both houses and is in conference committee. If the committee approves, both houses will need to approve a final draft by the end of the session May 1. Gov. Neil Abercrombie is likely to support the bill since his administrators have testified in support.





  1. Just so we're clear…. because I have prepared myself and my family to be as self-sufficient as possible in the event of an emergency, Neil and/or Kirk can unilaterally/bilaterally commandeer my personal property that I have paid for with my own money (money earned in the private sector, mind you)? The biggest problem is that the people are NEVER the ones who determine & interpret if we are "hoarding" or what "equitable distribution" truly means. If I have taken the time and sacrificed resources and priorities to take care of myself and my family for 4-6 months independently , what damn business is it of anyone else, much less the government? Instead of buying "green bottles" like there's no tomorrow or enough jewelry to look as though you've pillaged a pirate ship, maybe, just maybe, YOU buy a can or two of freeze dried food or an extra pack of toilet paper or water once in a while to store away. And instead of saying, "Ho, brah, we go Vegas!", how about you buy a few canned goods every couple of weeks? Maybe you don't need that XBox One & it's $60 games or that Louis V bag as much as you should prepare to take care of yourself & your family. And my firearms? MOLON LABE!!! The saddest part about that aspect is that people will not even understand that the 2nd Amendment was crafted to ensure this very thing wouldn't happen. Ironic, no? The original intent and overarching meaning has nothing to do with hunting or being a militia member ready to fight foreign aggression (as the Left would like you to believe) but rather for people to be able to protect themselves FROM THE GOVERNMENT, hence the part, "being necessary to the security of a free state". I, for one, will not comply. I will not back down and I will not give up what all of our forefathers fought so relentlessly & diligently to achieve. And no… that's not limited to tangible possessions but also our rights of FREEDOM and LIBERTY. There is NOTHING in this bill that trumps our 2nd & 4th Amendments nor the spirit of our Constitution (and, no, you pseudo-intellectuals, that's not what "general welfare" means). It's the Bill of RIGHTS….. not the Bill of NEEDS so don't tell me that I don't need that much stored food & water or guns & ammo. WAKE UP, people!! Turn off American Idol & the Kardashian for a sec. Everyone loves to make fun of Libertarians and "preppers" and ridicule our kooky ideas about societal breakdown and gov't encroachment and ineptness but who are the very ones this bill looks to and ROBS in the event of an "emergency"? And what happened during the last tsunami ADVISORY (which is the lowest level alert, mind you)? A fight broke out at the Ewa Beach Chevron less than 2 hours into it. I have the right to defend myself, my family, & my property by any means necessary against that kind of breakdown & chaos. Now that I got all of that out…I realize I am howling at the wind or even preaching to the choir. However, it is my duty and responsibility as a vigilant citizen to do my best to work & fight against that which seeks to "fundamentally change" our country. This isn't the end… not by a long shot.

    • I see no problem in the government taking the needed measures in a state of emergency to ensure public order and the safety of the community effected by the emergency.

      If people are hoarding items that are needed to relief the general populace in the event of a emergency then it would be insane for the government to stand aside and allow those resources to go unused only because the owners refuse to release the resource.

      I doubt that your little pile of 6 months of food is going to show up on their radar, as the bill was clearly keeping in mind large stockpiles of goods that would most likely be in the hands of a business as a private home owner's food supply. It is most likely meant as a legal tool to take warehouses of goods.

      I don't have time to educated you on your clearly polluted understanding of the Constitution, or Liberty and Freedom. Your bumper sticker understanding of it is actually pretty dangerous considering you access to firearms and the demented belief that you have the "right" to defend yourself , family and property against what you deem as chaos. By your logic people that don't have what you have gather would have the right to take it in defense of themselves, family and property.

      But alas I have digress too far from my original point. And that is the government taking the needed measures to ensure the peace and rapid response to the emergency at hand is a good thing and a move that you too should support seeing as your fear of public unrest would be greatly reduced if that unrest was handed quickly with such expanded powers.

      • Holy crap where do I start? I wish I could say I understand what you are trying to convey. What I can ascertain, however, from your commentary is that a personal nerve must have been struck by my, "bumper sticker understanding" of things. I'm thankful, though, for your offer to "educated" me. I'm proud of my "little pile" of 6 months of self-sufficiency because it's precisely that…self-sufficiency. When did it become crazy and paranoid to take the initiative to take care of yourself and not have to rely on the government? Has it been tough to do on a modest income? Absolutely. Have we made sacrifices to come this far? No question. Do we and will we continue to do so while forgoing vacations and nights out and $5 coffees? Yes. Why? Because it's what responsible and self-accountable people do. We don't EXPECT anyone else to do it for us. Maybe you do and that's entirely your choice and we don't care what you do. Go on with your bad self. Isn't the flip side of self-sufficiency the government FORCING you to spend a requisite amount of your own money to procure adequate food, water, shelter, & supplies? What would you say then? I would, we would, be as much against that as we are HB 849. As for your self-professed understanding, or lack thereof, of my logic? Priceless! As was made clear, I will rightfully DEFEND myself, my family, and my property against those who try to take it or do harm to us. Please tell me where it is I stated that people have the right to take possessions from others? Furthermore, how does one take things from others in "defense of themselves"? Does that not make them the aggressor? Have I, too, "digress" too far? Let's start here…. isn't it the point of laws is to explicitly spell out what others (governments as well as individuals) CANNOT do to you? As our president once bemoaned…" The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties… what the government CAN'T do to you.". For once, he's right. HB 849, however, is the exact opposite. Those of us who are wary of this bill would be more than happy to see it through if it clearly stated and provided against the government arbitrarily deciding what the government can take for "equitable distribution". I believe that government should help those who can't help themselves but without taking from those who have diligently and honestly taken steps to do so on their own. Why did the bill exclude such language spelling out what was not on the table for confiscation and "equitable distribution"? I fail to see how a simple statement of limitations on the governor and mayors makes anyone crazy or a conspiracy theorist. For those of you who support HB 849, why would it be crazy to include safeguards against government over reach? As people, we are always going to disagree on government's appropriate role in citizens' lives and that's fine. However, history and current events alike repeatedly provide us with examples of what happens when governments seize and obtain more and more power. Refer to any of the world's dictators, past and present. Ask people who have lived in those situations. I personally know people who have and to a person, none of them said it happened overnight or all at once. Their stories were the same… it was a nudge here and a law for "safety and welfare" there until they found themselves saying," When did this happen?". And for your thought that government should prevent people from "hoarding"? What don't you understand about YOU NOT BEING THE ONE WHO DETERMINES EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS?!?! But alas I have digress too far from my original point (See what I did there?) and in the process violated the wisdom of not arguing with a fool because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Now, I don't know too much about zombies or sheeple or anything else out of left field but I do know that more government power is not the answer. They can barely keep roads paved, water mains together, or build the Kapolei Judicial Building with enough floors or buy a fire truck that can fit in the Wahiawa Fire Station. You want them taking more control and power in emergency situations? If your answer is yes… there's no point in continuing. And, again, I appreciate the offer for you to educated me but I'll take my bumper sticker understanding of things as well as my grammar/spell check and be on my way. But before I go here's one more "bumper sticker" for you to chew on…Why did the libertarian chicken cross the road? None of your damn business. P.S. I understand the anonymous "Guest" posting. I wouldn't want anyone knowing I wrote those things either.

      • Oh good lord… one word, Paragraphs. Use them, love them, don't write without them.

        Now on to your post.

        Point One:

        I never stated anywhere in my post that you preparing for yourself and your family was a bad thing nor did I in any way minimize your effort in doing so. Good for you.

        If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I stated that the government doesn't care about your little supply of food. The law is designed to gain warehouses amount of food from businesses or the off chance that a private citizen has something that is of value in an emergency, like tools that could clear a road of a fallen tree during a hurricane.

        Point Two:

        You commented that their was a fight at a gas station as your rational. "I have the right to defend myself, my family, & my property by any means necessary against that kind of breakdown & chaos". Your words my friend. What you deem as a breakdown or chaos suddenly gives you the "right" to do what you think is needed to defend what you care about.

        By that logic as soon as the "breakdown" happens as long as someone is doing whatever it takes to "defend" their family, it is therefore a right. That includes taking what they need from you. If someone lacks the resources for themselves and their family or lack the means to defend their property in a meaningful manner than they have the "right" to take what they need from others because they are simply doing whatever it takes for themselves and their family's survival.

        You are advocating the belief that there is no accountability for ones actions because it's chaos. I hope you feel that same way if someone takes from you what they need from you, because they are following your logic to the letter. What ever it takes right?

      • Point Three:

        The Constitution creates government as much it restricts it, a common misunderstanding that too many people seem to miss as people only look at the bill of rights and not the entirety of the document, it also has means to enact changes as needed with the times, a clear principle laid down in numerous writings by the founding fathers.

        The government has repeatedly enacted powers in states of emergencies that doesn't follow to the letter the spirit of the bill of rights since the inception of the union and each time they have restored the power back to the norm after the state of emergency. Bad roads and other examples of government failure isn't the same thing.

        Your belief in a slippery slope is a common fallacy of those that prefer that nothing be done. You want the government to to assure you of limits of actions in the middle of an emergency even if what they need to solve a problem is right before them. You want the government to wait for a individual to grant permission?

        What if someone says no after being asked? do you expect the government to just sit there in front of a problem and tell others that they need to respect the right of the owner and just deal with it? Madness.

        Hoarding is really quite simple.

        Does a individual or group have within their possession the resource to solve a dire problem that would go unattended for undue amounts of time without the use of said resource?.

        Going back to the road blocked scenario, If a person nearby had the fuel needed to continue to clear the road of debris after a major storm and refuses to provide the clean up crew that fuel so the road maybe cleared then it would in my book be considered hoarding and the government should take that fuel so the road way could be cleared and the free flow of people, resources and commerce is again restored.

        Point Four:

        There is a bit of a nerve being struck, because your comment is the same asinine rant that I hear in every prepper meeting or class I attend here in Hawaii and else where in the states. It is just mind numbing hearing it from kooks about the government this and the government that, New World Order this and a that.

        Oh did you see that new Youtube video? Guess what I heard Alex Jones said today? You have to keep buying ammo, gold and food the collapse is coming. Obama this and Obama that. Did you get your mags yet? You know congress is going to ban those?.

        I actually feel I might know who you are based on how you talk, I Nod my head, tell people I agree with them. Maybe toss in a false personal story I heard myself, typical anecdotal stories but it enforces the paranoid beliefs of others and makes me seem like one of the "tribe"

        See the thing is, I sit in these meetings, gatherings, and classes I hear this same nonsense over and over again.

        But again, I digress.

        Instead of being a welcoming outlet for an education for people in any area in the nation not just Hawaii, the prepper community is just closed to those that share a similar view point on their interactions with their fellow human beings before, during and after disasters.

        I for one believe it's a needed skill and habit to learn in prepping not only as an individual but as a community especially in Hawaii, we are 2400 miles from the nearest significant landmass, Sustainable and self-sufficiency should be the state's motto in practice and in policy. Hawaii should grow it's own food and provided it's own energy. I don't want to rely on ships to ensure the people have enough to eat.

        You may not call your fellow Human beings "sheeple" or "zombies" or "predators" but the tone of your comments is the same as doing so. Your rant shows the same contempt for anyone that isn't like you, that doesn't store food, doesn't own guns, doesn't pack away supplies. They are below you as a fellow human being for no other reason than they don't share your fear of not having enough or the government.

        And that is where I disagree with the majority of the prepper community as a whole. Because they aren't a real community, they don't think about the community they live in, they think only about one's self, I made "friends" while attending different activities, but we all have a clear understanding that is unspoken or at times bluntly spoken and that is what is mine is mine.

        I was on Kauai when hurricane Iniki hit, I was there when we were left alone for a month without outside help, without electricity, medical aid . You know what happened? People came together and shared what they had, put tarp on the ground of houses wet carpet so people could sleep, stores gave away food and people shared what they had, neighbors that had tools started clearing road ways do what they could to help. The army corp of engineers couldn't believe it when they got to us how calm the island was and they just came from Florida and the stuff they saw after Andrew.

        That is what should be fostered within the prepper community and taught outside of it. Not this paranoid fear of governments and collapses of society, but people being armed with the know how and stay committed to the value of community.

      • Point Five:

        I like Libertarians, real interesting folks with real interesting beliefs about government and they all sound really lovely in theory yet much different in practice.

        I have been to many nations in the world that have no government or limited government, that has no laws or enforcement of those laws, where the populace is free to own weapons and use them as the only means of defense or to keep order (what pasts as order in those nations). Where militias are the rule of law and where the only means to decided whom is guilty and whom is innocent is the opinion of the person or group holding the most guns.

        You are free to move those nations if you so desire, No taxes, No government services or laws that matter, No roads or semblance of infrastructure, lots of open land and fresh air, Bartering as the core form of payment and all the gun toting neighbors that you could want. The perfect libertarian paradise. The promise land really.

        Now for me, and I am just speaking for myself. I prefer my nation and state have things like the rule of law, or roads and infrastructure. I like my nation to have currency so I don't make 20 stops between 20 people that make 20 different goods in order to barter for the 20 items I need that day. I don't need to worry about if my neighbor is going to decide what form of "justice" is within his right today or if I should shoulder my rifle every where I go just to ensure I get home safely.

        Funny thing is, the majority agree with that belief.


        You are the typical paranoid prepper with a bumper sticker understanding of the role of the Constitution and government in general. You completely ignore the basic tenements of governance. One would only have to read your comment to understand these points.

        You would say that a nation doesn't have the right to protect it's people or to come to it's people aid if it infringes on someone "rights" Your logic would have firefighters stand by and let city blocks burn to the ground because someone parked a car in front of the fire hydrate and we can't violate someone's private property and privacy by moving the car or break the car windows.

        It stands to reason that when an emergency happens damn the owner of that car, break those windows or haul that car away and let the water flow to put out the fire.

  2. Can a simple comparison of past procedures with proposed ones be first considered. The conclusion of this Article doesn't give me any warm and fuzzies concerning this process jumped over: "The bill passed both houses and is in conference committee. If the committee approves, both houses will need to approve a final draft by the end of the session May 1. Gov. Neil Abercrombie is likely to support the bill since his administrators have testified in support." My question is "Are the government entities working within the parameters of constitutional considerations or simply going along in an emotional frenzy to please the corrupt Governor, Mayors, and where's the Attorney Generals responsibilities, here? Just to kiss the Napoleon ass of the channeling Governor's globalist Obama-the-nations' plans? Using an "Emergency" label like Obama did to rally the troops of militants oppressing the masses one pay check at a time for loyalty to the cause of tyranny in government. "
    . . .May 1. Governor Neil Abercrombie is likely to support the bill since his administrators have testified in support(?) " Neil Abercrombie who believes we are all "wasteful eaters unable to make any free decision of our own?" His Administrators are APEC supporters, aren't they? Is this a take over using our own resources to oppress us? For the ignorant zombies the answer is a loud, reverberating, "YES!!!" So, how do we effectively counter these corrupt movements? "GET INVOLVED and stop acting like cowering fascists interpreting law as if it is a 'rule' to be toied with. And then, made into some flippant 'policy' that changes with the wind of non-leadership." What part of these changes are even 'legally' managed under whose authority that is never questioned? Is this all the 'favor(ism) system' for those chosen to be the 'elite in power' that we fund and arm for our own demise and not representation of the 'public-at-large.' The 'PUBLIC' which is the enemy and is being systematically propagandized into submission for what higher purpose, again? Stop flailing, thinking someone else is going to do it for you! Remember "Rights and Responsibilities" are for each individual citizen to defend. The armed Police, Homeland Security, etc. (911 was an inside job. Try reviewing the videos on this topic and see for yourself!), are funded to shoot the decent persons and ultimately create another civil war that no one can win other than those who economically control the land and resources. Do we want to be a North Korean regime? I know who you are and I say what you did. . .If you see something say something and turn on your neighbor who isn't the cause of your distress.—anonymous.

    • See folks, this is the kind of insanity that comes with watching too many youtube shows by wackjobs.

      But let's be fair here. At least you aren't completely retarded. you got the basic idea of the global conspiracy down.

      And I see that you follow the typical label of zombies that nutjob survivalist and preppers give to other human beings that don't share their confused fearful view of the world. I bet you love to teach your family and friends to see people as "sheeple" ,"predators", and "zombies" to dehumanize people and make the act of violence and killing of your fellow human beings easier for them. After all they aren't like you anymore right?

  3. @ Matt Reynolds

    Preach it bruddah for 'freedom and liberty,' fascists globalists don't comprehend or will they ever? Embrace our servitude and kiss the middle class goodbye, for now. Just label me your local 'terrorist' and I'll know I've made my point clear! I'll die a happy citizen of the 'United' States (of America) that can secede from this tyrannical government disbanding the enforcers of non-law. Take your F.E.M.A. camps and shove them in your apathetic outlets. And what is privacy invasion, again?

    • Well I am glad that you are willing to be a terrorist for your insane beliefs, but you have no idea in the slightest what your are talking about when it comes to Freedom or Liberty.

      But it's fine, when you become a poor sap in a straight jacket at kahi mohala yelling about Tyrannical governments during your daily dose of candy in cups that are going to help you think better.

  4. Kill all the cops. Burn their homes and shoot whoever comes out the door and then run away.
    Molotov cocktail their cars as they sit looking for speeders, and drive off.
    They will get the message quickly.

    • Yes, clearly killing those that merely work for the government is the answer to all your perceived threats from the government.

      Nothing like committing the very acts of terror that you level the government of doing to get your point across about how evil the government is.

      What a deluded child you are.

  5. This comment section is full of crazies! "Shoot cops" and the paranoia of taking paid items for government use???? Holy crap! Ed Teixeira quit. Let it go, dude! This rag is a Sam Slom mouthpiece. I don't usually read this junk, I stumbled across this one, and now I feel I wasted even more of my time. It feels like I am looking at the decendants of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones. Looks like we need another wedding scene!

    • You say it's full of crazies and then you suggest re-enacting a murderous movie scene. Now who's the crazy one?

  6. Well it is clear that only crazy people would believe the nonsense of their liberties being taken away by the law or that the government employees that are hired to do a job should be firebombed for doing it in order to "get the message across" that the government is wrong.

    • Dear Mr. Mystery Guest, who has replied to everyone above by defending and placing trust in your government to take care of you and not trample on your Constitutional rights (which I suspect by your lack of proper grammar that you do not fully understand).

      Here is exhibit A as to why Matt Reynolds and many of us are concerned about this expansion of "emergency" powers:

      Police arrested a 65-year-old man in Milford, Conn., after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard on Monday. Upon further investigation, officers recovered an unregistered “assault rifle” and three “large-capacity magazines.”

      Now James Toigo faces a plethora of gun-related charges, including unlawful discharge of a firearm, cruelty to an animal, first-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree breach of peace, failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing large-capacity magazines.

      Under Connecticut’s hastily-passed gun control law, gun owners are required to register their so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines with the state or face a class D felony. Many have argued the law is unconstitutional because gun owners who previously purchased firearms and magazines legally can be retroactively turned into criminals.

      Police officers reportedly heard a gunshot nearby while they were directing traffic in the area. Authorities reportedly determined that Toigo shot the squirrel.

      The firearm used to shoot the squirrel was not the semi-automatic rifle that police later confiscated. Officers also seized “several” other guns, even though they were not used in a crime and were legal.

      “As the investigation progressed the officers seized several firearms from the home for safe keeping,” Officer Jeffrey Nielsen said in a press release. “That included the assault riffle and the three high capacity magazine he did not have registered.”

      To reiterate, police confiscated “several” of the man’s other firearms, even though Nielsen admitted the majority of them were registered and legal.

      Toigo will not get his guns back until his case is heard. Depending on the outcome of the case, he will then have to petition the police department to get his firearms back.

      Toigo is scheduled to appear in court on May 13, the New Haven Register reports.

      • So a man failing to follow the law of his state by not registering his weapons is being punished for it. So what? If the man had followed all of the required laws in regards to the state law then he wouldn't have nothing to worry about, all he had to do was register his ownership.

        But what does an absent minded person (I hope he is absent minded) have to do with emergency powers? I wasn't aware that citizen's unlawful actions in ownership of a unregistered weapon is equal to tyrannical government powers. In what way was his rights harmed? If it is unlawful for him to fire his weapon in an residential neighborhood without being in danger of life or limb then how is it the government's fault for his actions? Is it legal to shoot squirrels in that state?

        That man's actions was his own fault, not the state government. If you believe that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions than we are going to have to agree to disagree in that regard.

        Your entire comment is based on a story of a man that did not follow the laws of his state and has nothing to do with government overreach in emergencies or even in general.

      • Dear Mr. Mystery Guest, I used that article as an example of Government overreach, not specifically "emergency powers," which is essentially government overreach as a reaction to an "emergency." The point is that this man purchased those firearms legally in the State of CT and one day, with the stroke of a pen, the State passes a law that turned the man into a felon. Yes, you could argue that all the man had to do was to comply and register his firearms, but that is not the point. Had the man purchased his firearms after the law took effect, he would be buying them with the knowledge that registration is a requirement of purchase, just like here in Hawaii. However, this is not the case in CT. They have taken a man who has done nothing and made him a criminal. Where is that Constitutional? How can you one day wake up and be a felon after having done nothing, is there no grandfathering for those who legally purchased their firearms? Is having done nothing (not registering his firearms) criminal? It appears so, in CT.

        The government has been on this slow drip of taking our rights away for decades, a little here a little there so as to be almost unnoticeable. It has gotten to the point now where Hawaii can just declare an emergency for whatever reason and without any specific restrictions on its powers, take from private citizens and private entities anything it deems necessary for "equitable distribution" of goods and services. If this does not concern you at all, then one day you'll have many more problems to deal with one day than us crazy preppers.

        Last point; you used Hurricane Iniki on Kauai as an example of communities coming together in a time of emergency to help each other. That is exactly what we are about. NOT THE GOVERNMENT stepping in and forcing "equitable distribution." Go live in Cuba if that is your idea of Utopia.

Comments are closed.