► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

Can We Add Agency Law To Our Growing List Of Grievances?

by Flyovercountry ( 94 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Fascism, Progressives, Regulation, Tranzis at March 5th, 2015 - 8:58 am

Tip of the hat to The Daily Caller whose video I did not embed here due to their insistence upon the usage of autoplay, something I view as evil. Please click here, for their story, complete with a recorded phone conversation in which an apologetic banker gets to tell a business owner who had held an account at said bank for over a decade, that the government had forced his account to be frozen for no other reason than the fact that the government no longer appreciates his industry’s contribution to our economy.

Yes, Operation Choke Point is an evil perpetrated by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The fault dear Brutus however does not lie in our stars that we are underlings, but in ourselves. There are many who would point to the 60’s as the beginning of the Progressive’s gaining their stranglehold on our nation. Some point to FDR and the, “New Deal,” as that beginning point. I’ve heard that our troubles with the progressive movement date back to Woodrow Wilson and his Presidency. However, I would like to point out that the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments did far greater damage, even before Wilson took his position as our Chief Executive. (I realize that the Seventeenth Amendment became part of our Constitution about a month after Wilson’s Inauguration, but it was ratified before Wilson actually took office.) Many experts in our nation’s history will state that Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive to affect our national agenda, and granted he gave us a big push in that disastrous direction, and redefined the Executive Branch, but he was not where it all began. This all started with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This was the first victory of the Progressive Movement, and it has grown into the behemoth that allows Barack Obama to act as a man elected to be our emperor, rather than our President.

For those who are not familiar with it, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 established our very first Federal Agency. This agency was vested with the ability to create its own rules, its own authority to enforce those rules, and its own system to adjudicate the process for any who wished to push back against the decisions of the agency. Quite literally, we had managed to create an entity that had contained within its scope of operation, a body that was vested with all of the powers of governance, thus doing away with the separation of powers. Since that date in our history, any and all legislation has been written purposefully vague, only ever including a desired outcome, with the specific rules to be determined later by either an existing federal agency, or through the creation of a new federal agency. It is With this wonderful exercise of genius that the destruction of our Constitutional Protections began. Agency Law was created with the establishment of the ICC in 1887. It should also be noted here, that it took almost exactly five years for the agency purportedly designed to keep the railroad men from becoming too powerful for the liking of those who lobbied for this legislation, to be peopled entirely with those, “robber barons,” so feared and vilified that the agency was thought necessary. Funny how that works out.

Once that happened, what we see today, even though it has taken 128 years to get here, became inevitable. Give Barack Obama credit for this at least. He saw the potential to simply ignore the U.S. Constitution afforded to him by this set of circumstances, and has taken full advantage of it. All he needs to do is suggest or ask that one of the agencies situated under the federal umbrella, write some additional rules to add to the scope under which they operate, and he pretty much can enact unilaterally anything he wishes to codify as law. Yes, technically such efforts can be overturned by our Judicial Branch, and indeed many of these actions have been thus far. However, our Judicial Branch moves too slowly to monitor or even address every such indiscretion. Even if it were capable of keeping up, Agency Law itself has become so ingrained in our society, such Judicial oversight and pushback has itself become all too rare.

In our history, there have been two Presidents who’ve tried earnestly to do something to put an end to, or at least reign in this system run amok. The first was Richard Nixon, and I’m sure you all remember what happened to him for his efforts. The second was Ronald Reagan, who also failed, and in fact discussed that failure as being his lasting regret.

So far, 26 states throughout the fruited plains have formally adopted ballot initiatives in favor of an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing and debating Constitutional Amendments. I am most definitely in favor of this. By the way, many of the Liberals in our nation are as well, since they’re convinced that they would be able to alter the First Amendment to, “correct,” the Citizens United Decision.

One amendment that I’d like to see come to fruition would be something to put an end to Agency Law. Consider for one moment what this system has allowed for a President with dictatorial ambitions to do in only the short amount of time from early November until now. Barack Obama has rewritten our Immigration law, repealed the Second Amendment, pledged to unilaterally raise our taxes, promised to confiscate our 401k’s, threatened to fire the entirety of the retail financial services industry, instituted cap and trade, inflicted net neutrality, signed some very questionable treaties without the requisite Senatorial Consent, changed existing law, and all of this done with the statement that he gave Congress the chance to do what he wanted before he did it alone.

Don’t blame the Bamster however. While his actions are bad enough, it was we the people who didn’t realize that gridlock was itself a perk, gifted to us by the founding fathers, rather than a problem as proclaimed by the low information voting crowd. Barack Obama is merely the messenger, who has alerted us to a huge problem, and one that hopefully we can figure out how to correct.

Ronald Reagan campaigned on a platform that included ending the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. If the single most popular President in the modern era could not rid us of the two most unpopular facets of the federal behemoth, as he’d promised to do while campaigning, then what chance would anyone have to actually do something about reducing the size and scope of government? We keep talking about the symptoms, meanwhile, the cancer grows free. Something must be done to reign this monster in, and unless Agency Law itself is addressed, nothing will be successful.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Oh Sweet Irony, Besides Being My Favorite Comedic Form, Thou Art A Cruel Bitch.

by Flyovercountry ( 60 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy at August 19th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Please enjoy this video courtesy of LibertyPen, which popped up in my inbox this fine morning.

Patrick Moore, founder of Green Peace, on why he left that organization:

Basically they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti corporatism, anti globalization, anti business, and very little to do with science or ecology, and that’s when I left. I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicos basically, and that they were using it for fundraising purposes. Nobody is going to listen to you if you say the world is not coming to an end, but if you say the world is going to end, you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it’s combined with misinformation leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.

I am by no means an expert on the oil industry, and all of what I believe that I know is based upon things I’ve read or heard, or found through the internet. Recently, I’ve read several articles that claim that the United States could very soon be the largest oil producing nation in the world. Apparently, hydraulic fracturing of our shale and tar sands deposits, which is more correctly pronounced fracing and not fracking, is capable of producing more oil than our own domestic needs would need in order to fuel our economic health, thus making the oil production from the nations making up the Middle East virtually inconsequential.

As I said, I do not know if that is true or not, but I do know that Prince Bin Alwaleed Talal sent his uncle, the king of Saudi Arabia, a letter that warned of the dire economic consequences to his family, and by default Saudi Arabia, should the Saudi’s allow this technology to gain further traction than it currently enjoys. (There are about a Million fracing operations in the United States today.) This is an important letter, and should be great news to anyone who claims that they’d like to see the United States free from the dependence on, “foreign oil, and the interests that this, “evil,” serves.

Through all of this, if any of it is true as I suspect strongly that it is, irony has raised her pretty little head and given us all the laugh of the century. Our President has perhaps the worst economic record since FDR, including the days of the Misery Index, otherwise known as the Carter Presidency. The potential oil boom here could put a rather quick end to our economic woes, and indeed has already served to give us the slight improvements economically speaking, that many on the Left are pointing to as proof that Obamanomics is working. The ironic part of course is that even as Barack Obama touts his great success thus far in fixing our economy, he is actively engaged in trying to stop the one thing that is helping, and likely to be our salvation in the future.

What would our jobs numbers and unemployment numbers look like were we to remove the shale oil and gas boom, all of which is occurring on private land, and not federally leased land by the way, from the mix? If you take only for example Texas and North Dakota off of the table, Obama is still in hugely negative territory in terms of net jobs growth. Remove the previously excluded part time jobs from the mix, along with Texas and North Dakota, and the results would be down right scary. So, what we have is a President who needs an oil boom to help him achieve his goal, which includes the destruction of the U.S economy as one of the steps necessary for its achievement, that will undoubtedly put an end to his dream of destroying the U.S. economy, thus thwarting him from achieving his ultimate goal. Barack’s goal of course is the reformation of America as a Marxist State.

This is why the environmental movement is so important to the Zero. Their agenda is flat our Marxism cloaked in green hysteria. About once a week I’ll see on my facebook feed some reference to fracing, or the XL Pipeline. It will be some promise of the sky falling should we allow these energy producing efforts to continue, thus allowing our economy to experience any sort of benefit from affordable, efficient, and seemingly inexhaustible sources. The vaunted manufacturing sector of our economy which the political left is constantly heralding our eminent loss of, needs first and foremost that efficient, affordable, and inexhaustible energy if it is to retain even the slightest viability what so ever.

What I will not see in those postings however, is any sort of actual evidence that the claims are true. Fracing for instance, has taken a terrible hit in reputation, via movies, television shows, documentaries, magazine articles, law suits, what have you, and not one of the hysterical claims made has ever been proven. In fact, most of the claims made have been proven to be completely false. When I point this out to the fine folks who post this trash, I get told that, “this time, some evidence may actually be found, so let’s just accept the damage to our economy based on what future evidence may show.”

Oh sweet irony though. The political left needs to see this oil boom succeed in order to maintain their grip on power, and their goal is to quash the very oil boom that they need. I do believe in God, but more importantly, I believe in a God who possesses a sense of humor. Thanks for the laugh dear Lord.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Still Think The EPA Hasn’t Taken Too Much Authority Upon Itself?

by Flyovercountry ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Economy, Progressives, Regulation at June 13th, 2012 - 8:00 am

I have written before on this blog about the dangers of a government bureaucracy, once it has been created. The dangers include the bureaucracy’s ability to take on a life of its own, exceed its mandate, increase its own scope and authority, operate with limited oversight and thus beyond the protections afforded by our system of checks and balances. Just about the time that some goofy liberal read the post and commented that I had not provided any decent examples of this actually taking place, the EPA, that literal bonanza of examples for bureaucrats gone wild, has provided that perfect example for me. So, here’s to you people of the EPA, thank you for being the poster children for everything that’s wrong with our government, liberals, Democrats, The Obama Administration, bureaucrats, anyone employed to work in the public sector.

From the Investor’s Business Daily editorial:

Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a justifiably angry letter to Administrator Lisa Jackson last week complaining that her Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its legislative and constitutional authority by conducting drone surveillance flights over Nebraska and Iowa farms looking for violations of the Clean Water Act.

“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” said Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns, an opinion the bureaucrats rejected Friday in responding to the letter. The EPA argues that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have already authorized aerial surveillance, such as taking aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility.

Law enforcement using drones for legitimate law enforcement operations is one thing, what the EPA is up to is another. I do not know the specifics of the Supreme Court Case being referred to here, but I sincerely doubt that it was meant to give carte blanche for any infringement upon our collective civil rights as citizens of the freest society ever on Earth. There is a manifest difference between an agency tasked with law enforcement obtaining a warrant to fly a drone over a crime scene to determine the best method of apprehension of a criminal which will mitigate the possibility of civilian casualties, and the EPA flying drones randomly over a farmer’s property to determine if there is any way they can declare the mud puddles formed just after rain falls to be newly formed wetlands. To add injury to insult is that they can use this technology to put the farmers out of business. Afterwards this will be used to bolster Administration efforts to cite a decrease in food production as evidence that some new oil industry killing regulation is necessary to save the American Family Farm.

There is also a difference between a drone flying over public property, as creepy as I do find that, and a drone flying over private property. Being able to declare a private pond a navigable waterway so that you can place my home to be under federal jurisdiction as a part of the Clean Water Act is beyond any intended scope of the original function of any government agency in and of itself. Flying a drone over my property to determine if the potential to declare any part of my land a navigable waterway is most certainly beyond that.

Barack Obama and his Administration have very plainly declared war against the American People. We all have heard as children the story of the Pied Piper. He was hired by the townsfolk to rid the town of rats. He led all of the rats from the town by playing his flute. He came back later and asked the towns folk to pay the piper. When they refused to pay, he played his flute and stole their children. Grimm’s fairy tales are not for the feint of heart. Like all of the stories told by the Brothers Grimm, our subjects of the lessons involved are never fully capable of seeing the folly of not paying attention to the consequences of their ill conceived decisions until after the witch has begun the process of slicing them up and cooking them. The creation of the EPA was innocently conceived. In its current form, it began as a response to the Cuyahoga River catching fire for the third time, except that in April of 1972, it happened when the national media was in town covering the days leading up to the Presidential Primary. Hooray for us, we hired the piper, and he made a few commercials with an Indian crying, and presto, we cleaned up our environment. During the last couple of decades, the EPA has increased its demands upon us, and our refusal to pay, via Cap and Trade, LOST, KYOTO, and the plethora of other legislative boondoggles, has caused the Piper to start up with that flute of his.

Such is the danger of hiring the magic flute playing man. He is just as capable of turning his magic against you as he was in benefiting you. The piper has taken to destroying our economy and his intention is, just like it always seems to be with those unfortunate children who always star in the stories told by the Brothers Grimm, to destroy our economy and to slice it into little bits and cook it up. The good news of course is that we don’t have to allow this to happen. We can kill off our piper, and put an end to the EPA.

Thomas Sowell wrote in his latest column that calling Barack Obama a Socialist is an insult to Socialists. Socialists believe in government owning and controlling the means of production and inflicting their top down central planning from that perspective. Fascists believe in private citizens keeping control of the productive means, but that the political leaders would issue their edicts as to what products would be produced and lead from that perspective. The advantage of course comes when disaster inevitably strikes, the political leaders still have someone else to blame for the disastrous consequences of the top down planning. National famine caused by the Obama Administration will doubtless be blamed on greedy farmers demanding that they actually be paid for their efforts and hard work, and not on the fact that the Obama policy agenda is making it damn near impossible to operate a family farm.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Our Constitutional Scholar President Gets His Tuchus Beaten Again By SCOTUS

by Flyovercountry ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Socialism, Tranzis at March 22nd, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

It’s a bad day for a liberal President when even Justice Ginsburg rules against you.  Not only did the Obama Administration fail to convince the court’s only openly Marxist jurist serving on the bench, but they also have to live with the notion that she wrote the concurring opinion.  This case marks the second time during Administration that President Obama has had one of his policies lose in the Supreme Court.  While he is not the first President to find himself on the wrong side of the question of Constitutionality, he is still 0 for 2.  This is not the record we would have expected for a person who was marketed to the country as a, “Constitutional Scholar.”

His first smack down came in January of this year if you will remember, when a 9 to 0 decision said basically that Barack Obama, or any President does not have the authority to tell churches who they could and could not hire based on the religious leanings of the church.  In that case, a Lutheran Church ran a private school, and made the decision to hire as teachers, only those people that they felt would be good role models for passing on the Lutheran message as it pertains to all things educational.  In other words, they wanted their teachers to be Christians, and to pass those beliefs on to their students.  This is what the parents who sent their kids to a Lutheran school wanted, and this is what the owners of the school wanted.  President Obama disagreed.  In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the court decided that a President was not allowed to violate the First Amendment because his ultimate goal is to put an end to the practice of any religion other than Islam in America, nor for any other reason that he might have.

Yesterday’s loss, which makes him Zero for Two, came in the form of Sackett vs. The Environmental Protection Agency.  In this particular case, The EPA decided that they would prevent the Sackett’s from building a house on a piece of property that they owned.  The EPA decided that the property consisted of, or was located on wetlands in Idaho.  Here is where it gets dicey, they did not want to defend their position in court, and decided to dispense with the entire concept of due process.  They thought a good way to do this would be to tell the Sacketts that they thought it was possible that their property was inappropriate to build a house on, and therefore they should stop while the EPA took an indefinite amount of time to consider the matter.  They threatened to fine the Sacketts $35,000 per day for each day the Sacketts defied the order to stop building, and then further threatened to increase the fines to $70,000 per day if the Sacketts challenged them in court.  Nice!  So, for those of you keeping score at home, Little Barry read the Constitution and decided that the Fifth Amendment meant that he could circumvent Due Process by simply declaring that it was possible that a person was doing wrong without ever actually alleging it.  Since the allegation was never actually made, then a fair and speedy trial would never be warranted, regardless of the fact that deprivation of property was ongoing, permanent, and beyond redress.

The Supreme Court yesterday did not agree.  The decision was unanimous, not that the Sacketts could start building, but that due process must be granted.  For those who believe that this decision was limited in scope, and therefore not terribly important, I disagree.  It is a shot across the bow of a President who has been effectively creating law by executive fiat since he lost control of the Legislative Branch in January of 2011.  Things that Obama does are making their way to the Supreme Court in rapid fashion, and I do not believe that to be an accident either.  One other interesting thing to note here, he lost 9 to 0 on this one.  Putting aside any of the idiotic claims that this man is somehow a Constitutional Scholar, in his two trips to the Supreme Court so far, he has a combined score of 18 against, and 0 in favor of himself.  This does not exactly inspire confidence in his understanding of, or even his promise to uphold our founding document.  By writing a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg, the farthest left member of the court basically told the man child President that he has gone too far.  Removing Due Process prior to deprivation of Life, Liberty, or Property is the stuff that monarchs do to their subjects.  This is not something Presidents do to their fellow citizens.

The bad news for President Obama is that this is not going to be his last trip to the Supreme Court.  On Monday, he gets to go again, and this one will be a dozy.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.