Proposed New EPA Rules

Proposed New EPA Rules

The Environmental Protection Agency, in cahoots with the Army Corps of Engineers, wants to control every drop of water in the US.  There are several reasons for this.  One is that it is the nature of a regulatory agency to want to control everything that might possibly fall under its purview.  The old, "if you have a hammer, then the whole world is a nail" attitude.   Another reason is that there are a lot of wild-eyed, radical environmentalists who are actually part of the agency, or who have the ear of the agency, who would like for EPA to use the rule to further a radical environmental agenda.  

Clearly, the perpetuation of the bureaucracy is probably the highest goal.  Keeping one's job is always a concern if one is a bureaucrat.  Clean water is very low on the priority list, if it is there at all.  The authority for keeping water clean is already vested in the EPA.  As a matter of fact, water is now cleaner than it has been in 75 years.  There is no apparent need for any expanded jurisdiction.

The proposed new regulations have the potential for giving EPA the power to require farmers and ranchers to acquire a permit for most any normal activity, such as building a fence, or planting a crop, over a greatly expanded number of acres than is presently the case.     Under the proposed regulation, a field, for instance, that has water flowing through it one day per year would be subject to EPA scrutiny.  Think how many fields in Taylor county would be affected, especially after the two wet years we have had.  EPA bureaucrats, of course, deny this.  The figure they give nationwide for the expanded jurisdiction is a laughable 1300 acres.  Yeah, sure.  "We're from the government and we're here to help."

Finally, this is about ever expanding government control of another facet of American life and culture.  It seems like the Obama administration delights in doing everything it can to stifle the very entities that have made America great, namely business, industry, agriculture, and the military.

Random thoughts: Michelle Nunn, Obamacare, Citizens United,

Just some thoughts . . . . . .

Michelle Nunn . . . . I would vote for her if she would run on a platform of (1)  vote against any feel-good gun legislation, such as AWB, universal registration, universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, etc.     (2)  repeal the (UN)Affordable Healthcare Act.   (3) call for across the board reductions in all budget items.  (3)  repeal The Patriot Act  (4)  repeal NCLB and throw out the Common Core curriculum.       Fat chance of her doing any of those things.  Instead, she has aligned herself with the Obamas.  At a fundraiser in DC last year, Michelle Obama said:

And let's not forget about that commonsense gun legislation that so many of us feel so strongly about.  Sadly, as you know, that bill failed, and you want to know by how many votes?  It failed by just six votes in the Senate -- six.
………………………………..
The fact is that right now, we are just six seats away from losing the Senate -- just six.  That’s how close these midterm elections are.  So it is critical that we elect Michelle Nunn, Alison Grimes, Natalie Tennant.  It is critical that we get them to the Senate.  
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/18/remarks-first-lady-dscc-women-senators-event

If you are a gun owner in Georgia, or if you are just concerned about gun rights and/or any other freedoms, you need to join NRA.  And vote against Michelle Nunn.

xxxxxxxxxx

Obamacare . . . . . . it is now indefensible.  If a Republican had done what Obama has done with a law passed by Congress, the media would have impeached him, hung him, built a bonfire under his carcass, and sifted the ashes and buried them.  There have been now 27 major changes to the law by Presidential edict.  He can't do this.  Congress passed a law.  He is bound to execute that law.  Many of the changes have been blatantly political.  This latest deferment of certain requirements on businesses is just coincidentally put off until after the mid-terms.   The President lied about the law, and he knew he was lying when he did it.  "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."   He also said healthcare would be cheaper.  Anyone with good sense should have known that just couldn't be so.  He knew it was a lie.  The website train wrecked before it got out of the station house, at a cost of millions of dollars.  Why did his lapdog media let him get by with his lies and incompetence?  For the same reason they are not howling for his impeachment or resignation right now:  they have too much invested in the First Black President, the Messiah.  After all, they get a "tingle down the leg" when they hear him.   Even one of his liberal media sycophants is stating the obvious:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-i-m-getting-sick-of-defending-obamacare-20140211

xxxxxxxxxxx

Citizens United . . . . . . on my Facebook page, several times a day, "suggested posts" show up with titles like, "Kay Hagan wants to repeal Citizens United.  Please help her," or some such.  There are several different politicians or groups who have this as a stated goal.   Well, in actuality, what they are referring to is a Supreme Court decision that overturned much of the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform Law.  The name of the case is Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission.  The Court found that provisions of the law that prevented corporations, labor unions, or "associations" from running so-called advocacy ads are unconstitutional restrictions of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.   There is some discussion of what is "issue advocacy" and what is "express advocacy."   Basically, the Court ruled that protection of free speech was the paramount issue, and struck down the law.   There are a bunch of misconceptions, and outright misleading claims made by folks who don't like the SCOTUS decision.  Contrary to their claims, the groups mentioned, are NOT allowed to dump more gobs of money into a campaign.  They CANNOT, as a result of the law, send more money directly to a candidates campaign chest.  What they can do is to run radio and tv ads on certain issues.  In fact, one of the major purposes of McCain Feingold was to squelch the effectiveness of the National Rifle Association.    I'm going to shorten this with just a few facts.  Under McCain Feingold, the NRA could not have run ads in several states and Congressional Districts pointing out the abysmal 2nd Amendment stances taken by certain candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.  Neither could AFL-CIO have run ads in strong union states publicizing the anti-labor stances taken by some states.  One argument I hear from those who are opposed to the SCOTUS decision is, "corporations are not people, and the 1st Amendment protects people, not corporations."  Well, corporations are made up of stockholders.  The NRA is made up of millions of individuals who contribute to the political NRA/ILA part of the organization.  My $50 contribution, combined with the $50 contributions of a few million others, gives us a voice we couldn't have without the right to pool our money and let NRA speak for us.  Here is a link to an article published by the American Civil Liberties Union before passage of the original bill.  ACLU is a right wing, conservative bunch of neanderthals if there ever was one. (NOT)  They give as good an argument against such ill-conceived legislation as anyone.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform

Eric Holder a disgrace, but so is his boss

Get this now.  The sale, production, possession, or use of marijuana is against Federal law.  Two states have legalized the use of marijuana.  By definition, these laws are Unconstitutional.  (see the Supremacy Clause)   However, the Obama administration is making no move to enforce Federal law in these states.

Some banks, not knowing what the legal ramifications of handling what is evidently big money made in this newly legal (not really) industry, have refused to handle the money.  After all, they could come under some severe penalties for knowingly handling money earned in violation of Federal law.

Along comes Eric Holder.  He has said, basically, that the Feds won't mess with the banks if they take the money.  Citing a "public safety component," and a "law enforcement perspective," he said it ain't good to have these large bunches of cash "just lying around."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/holder-feds-to-let-banks-handle-pot-money-181777.html?hp=l2

In other words, the Administration, specifically the Holder Justice Department, wants to facilitate the banks in breaking Federal Law.   They are winking at laws passed by states in direct contravention of Federal Law.  This kind of thing really encourages respect for the laws of the land, doesn't it?

Personally, I have no problem with legalization of marijuana.  It would really probably be a good thing.  It would free up law enforcement, Federal, state, and local, to concentrate on more serious drug offences.

That isn't the question here, though.  If the Obama Administration is in favor of legalizing marijuana, they should get a Senator from one of the states (Washington and Colorado) to introduce legislation repealing the Federal Laws against marijuana.  If not, then they should enforce the law.  Send Federal Agents into the states, make buys, and bust the dealers.

Of course, Holder is just taking his cue from his boss.  Congress passed The Affordable Health Care Act.  Obama signed it.  Bad as it is, it is the law of the land.  However, Obama, by decree, is picking and choosing how, when, and in some cases, what parts of the law are going to be enforced.  That is Unconstitutional.  It is the law.  He is bound to enforce it.   Selective enforcement of laws by the very people who are Constitutionally bound to enforce laws as they are written and passed is a dangerous thing.  I don't understand why even the democrats in Congress are letting him get away with it.

Thoughts on several current events

I have, for the most part, sworn off posting political stuff on Facebook.  I will try to resume my blog for that purpose,  but not limiting it to politics.   I hope to post on various topics at least once, and hopefully twice, each week.  I promise to post a good Obama-Hillary-Eric Holder bash real soon. ;-)

There have been a couple of things that have happened in the last few days regarding carrying of personal firearms.  One is the incident in Maryland where a man who had a valid carry permit from Florida was harassed by Maryland officers even though he did not have his weapon with him.  I did link to this article on FB.  The article can be found at

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

I believe this is an example of the worst sort of behavior by police officers, short of actual physical brutality.  More than likely, the officers were "trolling" for drug mules.  The car was from Florida, and it and the occupants probably fit some kind of profile indicating a possible drug car.  It is disturbing to think that an innocent family can be inconvenienced, humiliated, and generally treated like criminals by law enforcement in the US.  Maryland is a notorious anti-gun state, but things like this happen all too often in even usually gun-friendly states.

Next, the incident in Florida where the retired Police Officer killed the guy who was texting during the movie previews.   Wow!  

I don't know exactly what happened, and whether the retired officer was indeed shooting in self defense after the incident escalated, but it sure sounds bad for him.  I won't offer an opinion on who is at fault here, but I do have some thoughts on carrying a personal weapon.

First, if one chooses to carry a firearm, he/she needs to be sure that he has the proper mental attitude.   If one isn't prepared to use his weapon if the need arises, then it could very well be used against him.  I am afraid many people buy a gun thinking that it can be used to scare away a potential attacker.  It might, but it might not.

I believe there are several things about which a legal carrier of a firearm must be very clear in his or her mind.

First, just because you carry a weapon, that does not make you a police officer.  Many people have fantasies of breaking up an armed robbery in a convenience store, or stopping a brutal domestic attack in a public place.  Remember, as a citizen (as opposed to a Police Officer), every bullet you fire has your name on it, with a strong possibility of a lawsuit at the end of it.  Police Officers have the liability protection of the state or municipality.  If Barney Fife fires a shot at a criminal but hits the Baptist Minister instead, the City of Mayberry is liable.  If you do it, you are liable.

Next, if you choose to carry, you need to become the meekest, mildest person in the room.  If you are carrying a weapon, I believe you lose the right, morally if not legally, to become aggressive.   You no longer can afford to blow your horn and flip off the idiot who cut you off in traffic.  You can't afford to initiate a confrontation over something so trivial as, say, texting in a movie theater.  You don't know how the person you are hassling is going to react.  If you have initiated such a confrontation, and wind up having to use your gun, then a jury is probably going to find you in the wrong.

I believe there are two legitimate reasons for a private citizen to carry a gun:  first to protect that individual and or his/her loved ones.  Next, and to a lessor extent, and in some circumstances, to protect property.  There might be times when intervention is justified, but I believe they are few and far between.