Posted by DrJohn on 5 June, 2012 at 10:15 am. 22 comments already!


The Schutzstaffel (SS) was originally conceived to be a protection force at Adolf Hitler's public mass meetings. It “evolved” into something far more sinister.

Barack Obama has let us know that he dreams of being a dictator and has said that he'd like to bypass Congress. Obama has found a weapon to hammer everyone and anyone without the messy need for Constitutional process. He has found his own SS. It's called the EPA.

Obama quickly amplified the power of the EPA

The Obama administration initially moved quickly to empower EPA regulation. It granted a waiver to California to allow the higher auto emission standards that had long been blocked by the Bush administration. In December 2009 it issued an “endangerment finding” which found that “The current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gasses . . . in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” That finding triggered steps toward such forms of regulation as a “mobile source rule,” a “trigger rule,” a “tailoring rule,” and a “reporting rule.”

Obama’s brandishing of EPA authority was widely interpreted as a ploy to pressure Congress to pass climate protection legislation. Many advocates of climate legislation regarded Congressional action as a better way to craft national climate policy than Clean Air Act regulation. But some climate protection advocates argued that the EPA could construct an effective climate protection regime either through direct regulation or through requirements on states that would lead to interstate cooperation to put a price on carbon emissions.

The EPA has a history of abusing American citizens:

In Pennsylvania, take the story of John Pozsgai, an immigrant from Hungary, who worked as a mechanic and eventually saved enough money to purchase the land bordering his home in Morrisville, Pa. This land was an old auto junkyard, and Mr. Pozsgai, taking pride in his home, proceeded to clean up this landfill by removing 7,000 old tires and rusted-out automobiles. However, the EPA did not view this effort as a clean-up but rather a violation of the Clean Water Act. You see, Mr. Pozsgai’s property was a wetland, ambiguously defined by the EPA as any property that has some sort of connection to a wetland. That connection to a wetland was a small drainage ditch located on the edge of his property.

Mr. Pozsgai did not need a permit to dump topsoil on an isolated wetland. However, the Army Corps of Engineers insisted he apply for one. Next, the EPA set up surveillance cameras to capture Mr. Pozsgai filling his land with topsoil. EPA agents then arrested him for “discharging pollutants into waters of the United States.” These “pollutants” consisted of earth, topsoil and sand. The EPA openly admits that no hazardous wastes were involved in the case, yet Mr. Pozsgai was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000. Mr. Pozsgai spent 1 1/2 years in prison, 1 1/2 in a halfway house, and was under supervised probation for five years. His family went bankrupt and was unable to pay its property taxes on the land.

A similar breach of power can be studied in the case of John Rapanos. Federal officials prosecuted Mr. Rapanos for shoveling dirt around on his property in Bay County, Mich. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers filed charges against Mr. Rapanos for “polluting” the wetlands by leveling the soil on his property. Under the “migratory molecule” rule, the Army Corps claims that any isolated wetland can fall under federal jurisdiction because there is a speculative possibility that a water molecule from one wetland may reach another navigable waterway. In Mr. Rapanos‘ case, the nearest navigable water is roughly 20 miles from his property.

The federal officials had little evidence and U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff threw out the conviction and refused to follow the unjust federal guidelines enforced by the EPA. Unfortunately, Judge Zatkoff was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Mr. Rapanos later appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet the court refused to hear his case. He now faces possible jail time.

James De Long has written a book on the abusive EPA:

What is the rule of law? DeLong quotes (p. viii) F. A. Hayek: “Stripped of all its technicalities, [the rule of law] means that government in all its action is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in a given circumstance and plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge” (The Road to Serfdom [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1944) 1976], p. 72). DeLong shows that planning to assure compliance with EPA regulations is nearly impossible because enforcement officials have so much leeway in their interpretation of the rules the EPA writes.

Not long ago Obama EPA appointee Al Almendariz pried off the top of the Pandora's box that is Obama's EPA:

Confirming what many in the industry long suspected, a video surfaced Wednesday in which Al Armendariz, an official at the Environmental Protection Agency, promotes the idea of crucifying oil companies. Armendariz heads up the EPA’s region 6 office, which is based in Dallas and responsible for oversight of Texas and surrounding states. The former professor at Southern Methodist University was appointed by President Obama in November 2009.

In a talk to colleagues about methods EPA enforcement, Armendariz can be seen saying, “The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

And not only has Armendariz talked about crucifying oil companies, he’s tried to do it. In 2010 his office targeted Range Resources, a Fort Worth-based driller that was among the first to discover the potential of the Marcellus Shale gas field of Pennsylvania — the biggest gas field in America and one of the biggest in the world. Armendariz’s office declared in an emergency order that Range’s drilling activity had contaminated groundwater in Parker County, Texas. Armendariz’s office insisted that Range’s hydraulic fracking activity had caused the pollution and ordered Range to remediate the water. The EPA’s case against Range was catnip for the environmental fracktivists who insist with religious zealotry that fracking is evil. Range insisted from the beginning that there was no substance to the allegations.

An Obama official has plainly said that the intent of the EPA is to destroy the coal industry:

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe plans to highlight a little-known speech by an EPA regional administrator who admitted on video that the Obama’s administration’s air regulations will kill the coal industry.

“Lisa Jackson has put forth a very powerful message to the country. Just two days ago, the decision on greenhouse gas performance standard and saying basically gas plants are the performance standard which means if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem. That was a huge decision,” Region 1 EPA Administrator Curtis “Curt” Spalding says, in footage filmed at Yale University.

“You can’t imagine how tough that was,” Spalding continued. “Because you got to remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the law and policy suggested. And it’s painful. It’s painful every step of the way.”

Now word comes that Barack Obama intends to use the EPA to enforce all legislation, starting with the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Announced by senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, who also chairs the White House Council on Women and Girls, as “a true champion for America’s women and girls” Obama spoke of the absolute necessity to pass the legislation — for more than just “fairness.”

“If Congress passes the Paycheck Fairness Act, women are going to have access to more tools to claim equal pay for equal work,” Obama said. ”If they don’t — if Congress doesn’t act — then women are still going to have difficulty enforcing and pressing for this basic principle.”

Pay close attention to how this would be enforced:

“The Chamber strongly supports equal employment opportunity and appropriate enforcement of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in an opposition letter. “However, this bill would, among other things, expand remedies under EPA to include unlimited punitive and compensatory damages, significantly erode employer defenses for legitimate pay disparities, and impose invalid tools for enforcement by the Labor Department.”

If somehow this was to pass the EPA would truly become Obama's SS. Proposing that the Paycheck Fairness Act be enforced by the EPA is not just of dubious legality it is sheer idiocy, but I do not doubt that Adolf Hitler would be loving it.

As for that Paycheck Fairness Act-

Reid: GOP doesn't want equal pay for women

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that Senate Republicans oppose equal pay for women, citing as evidence their expected opposition to the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act in a scheduled Tuesday vote.

“They don't agree with this, they don't want women to make the same amount of money, so they're filibustering this,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They are filibustering us even getting on the bill.”

But it turns out that women working for democrats in the Senate make $6500 less than their male counterparts. And what does Nancy Pelosi have to say about that?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday condemned companies that pay women less than men, but was unwilling to condemn Senate Democrats who pay their female staffers less than male staffers, saying that the Senate is “another world.”

With democrats, it always is.

0 0 votes
Article Rating