Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘environmental protection agency’

Trump Freezes EPA Grants to Liberal Pet Projects


waving flagAuthored by Edmund Kozak | Updated 25 Jan 2017 at 7:25 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-freezes-epa-grants-to-liberal-pet-projects/

epa

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have reportedly been instructed to freeze all of the agency’s contracts and grant programs until officials in the new administration can conduct a top-to-bottom review.

“Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments,” an internal email originally obtained by Pro Publica said.

In 2013, the EPA gave $84,000 to a researcher at the University of Michigan to study the effectiveness of using churches to promote environmental causes.

“The EPA awards more than $4 billion in funding for government grants and contracts each year,” Fox News reported on Tuesday.

A brief look at how some of that money was being spent under the Obama administration paints a clear picture as to why the new administration may be looking at an overhaul: In some cases, the Obama EPA has offered textbook case studies in how to waste taxpayer money on ideologically motivated projects.

> In 2014 the University of California, Riverside received $15,000 to create technology to reduce carbon emissions from those infamous scourges of the environment: barbecues. That same year, researchers at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University were given $15,000 of taxpayers’ money to build a pond on a roof, complete with a floating island.
/* */

> Also in 2014, the EPA awarded $15,000 to the University of Tulsa to create a system that monitored how much water hotel guests used while showering. The proposal made the rather Orwellian promise that the “technology will … assist hotel guests in modifying their behavior.”

> As creepy and ideologically motivated as that grant may have been, at the very least it attempted to address domestic water waste. The agency gave $1.5 million to the University of Colorado and the National Center for Atmospheric Research to study pollution caused by residential cooking — in Africa.

> In 2013, the EPA gave $84,000 to a researcher at the University of Michigan to study the effectiveness of using churches to promote environmental causes.

“Climate change — which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity — is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” the grant stated. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”REALLY

> The EPA seems to really like the idea of using churches as political propaganda centers. In 2015, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the EPA gave a $30,000 “environmental justice grant” to a Unitarian church that has preached against “white privilege” and called America “structurally racist.”

While not spending money in foreign countries and encouraging pastors to promote radical environmentalism, the EPA also seems to have spent considerable funds trying to answer questions to which the collective wisdom of the human experience already knows the answer.

> In 2014, the EPA gave a post-grad student at the University of Oregon $84,000 to study the link between plants and people, and whether or not living in densely populated urban areas with little to no vegetation is unhealthy (it is).More Evidence

While it is not yet known if current contracts will also be affected by the grant freeze, militant environmentalists across the country are undoubtedly pulling out their hair in fury at the news that no longer will the EPA spend money on liberal pet projects. Responsible Americans who wish their tax money be spent prudently, however, are likely to support the freeze.picture1

The Supreme Court Just Delivered A Crippling Blow To Obama’s Global Warming Agenda


waving flagReported by Michael Bastasch; 02/09/2016

The U.S. Supreme Court just delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama’s global warming agenda by halting the implementation of a key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on carbon dioxide emissions. The court won’t allow the EPA to implement its so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. This is a big win for the 29 states suing the federal government to stop a rule expected to cripple the coal industry.

“Five justices of the Supreme Court agreed with North Dakota and other parties that EPA’s regulation would impose massive irreparable harms on North Dakota and the rest of the country and that there was a substantial likelihood EPA was acting unlawfully,” Paul Seby, an attorney with law firm Greenberg Traurig representing the state of North Dakota, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Happy Happy Joy Joy

States asked the Supreme Court to halt implementation of the CPP after a lower court rejected their appeal in January. Now, Morrisey and the Obama administration will make their oral arguments on the merits of the law in front of federal judges in June.

“Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s leading the states against the EPA, in a statement on the announcement.

Morrisey argues the CPP amounts to “double regulating” by the EPA, since coal-fired power plants — the main target of the rule — are already being regulated under another provision of the Clean Air Act. States also argue the CPP is in effect a federal takeover of their energy policies.

We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.EPA Monster

This is the second major EPA regulation to be held up by the courts in recent months. Last year, federal judges issued a stay on an agency rule redefining “waters of the United States” — this sparked backlash from nearly every industry from farmers to energy producers.

But defeating the CPP in court may not be as easy as states think, since the Obama administration will likely argue striking down these rules would go against international commitments made by the U.S. in Paris last year. In December, the U.S. joined nearly 200 countries in pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming. Obama promised to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo

The Obama administration, however, may have problems of its own because it has not gotten the agreement ratified by the Senate — a key requirement for a legally binding treaty. This has only added to the confusion of whether or not the United Nations Paris deal is legally a treaty or not.

“This will be a fatal blow to the president’s climate agenda,” Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, told TheDCNF.AWWW Poor Baby

“This shows just how far the Obama administration has gone — they went too far,” Pyle said.

Baal Worship Settled-Science-600-LA Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

A Tale Of Two Rivers: Obama Condemns Flint Disaster After Ignoring Colorado Mine Spill


waving flagReported by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch, 01/26/2016

President Barack Obama was quick to condemn Michigan officials for letting high levels of lead contaminate Flint’s drinking water and promised millions of dollars in aid and justice for the city. The same cannot be said for his reaction to the thousands of people who had their drinking water tainted by the Gold King Mine spill in August — a spill caused by his own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

It’s a tale of two rivers, both contaminated by government mismanagement, but only one provoked moral outrage from Obama. While Obama said Michigan’s government shouldn’t “shortchange basic services that we provide to our people,” he was virtually silent when his own administration polluted rivers flowing through western states and Indian territory.

Flint’s water is full of lead

“If I was a parent in Flint, I’d be beside myself over my kids’ health,” Obama told auto workers during a visit to Detroit, Mich., Wednesday. Obama had met the day before with Flint Mayor Karen Weaver where he “heard firsthand how the residents of Flint are dealing with the ongoing public health crisis,” according to the White House.

Obama declared a federal emergency and initially gave Michigan $5 million in aid for Flint. That was followed up by a promise of $80 million from the White House to help solve Flint’s water problems.

Obama’s outrage comes after news his own administration knew about lead in Flint’s water for months and did nothing about it. The head of EPA’s regional office resigned over the disaster, and the agency and the White House have launched investigations into the matter.

The White House appointed “a Health and Human Services Department official to lead federal efforts to help the city” last week, according to The Associated Press. EPA’s inspector general opened up its own inquiry into the agency’s handling of the water crisis. “EPA did its job but clearly the outcome was not what anyone would have wanted,” Gina McCarthy told reporters while at an event at a D.C. soup kitchen earlier this month.Leftist Propagandist

“So we’re going to work with the state, we’re going to work with Flint,” McCarthy said. “We’re going to take care of the problem. We know Flint is a situation that never should have happened.”

Flint’s water crisis began in 2014 when the city switched its water supply over from Lake Huron to the Flint River. It was a money-saving effort proposed by state managers while the city was going through massive financial troubles because of its public employee pensions.

The Flint River’s water is more corrosive than Lake Huron’s, meaning treatments were required to keep the water from corroding lead pipes. But Michigan regulators applied the wrong standards, and Flint’s water became contaminated with high levels of lead.

Susan Hedman was made aware of the problems in April after a draft report on the issues was released. Flint’s mayor became aware of the draft report, but Hedman downplayed concerns while she waited for a “legal opinion” on how to proceed.

“The preliminary draft report should not have been released outside the agency,” Hedman wrote to Flint’s former mayor Dayne Walling in a July email. “When the report has been revised and fully vetted by EPA management, the findings and recommendations will be shared with the city and DEQ will be responsible for following up with the city.”Picture2

In October 2015, state officials finally admitted to applying the wrong water treatments to Flint’s drinking water. By January, Hedman had resigned and the Obama administration was moving quickly to give Flint money and investigate the situation.

EPA literally contaminated drinking water in three states

Compare the Obama administration’s response to Flint with its response to a disaster it actually caused.

In August 2015, EPA workers looking to stop mine wastewater leaks from abandoned mines near Silverton, Colo., accidentally ended up unleashing three million gallons of wastewater into the Animas River. The huge orange plume got into the San Juan River and made its way through three states and tribal territory, contaminating drinking water for thousands of people.

EPA did move to work with state officials to combat the spill, but the agency would not tell state and local officials information on how the spill happened or the federal contractors who caused it. The agency also did not notify affected communities for more than 24 hours after the spill happened.Hate Merchants

Obama, however, did not issue an emergency declaration, even though Colorado’s governor did. The president also did not make a speech expressing moral outrage at the fact his own administration polluted drinking water for thousands of people with heavy metals — which could stick around in the water for decades.Hate Merchants

In August, Obama issued four other disaster declarations for areas hit with heavy flooding and wildfires. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) even rejected pleas from Navajo Nation to help mitigate the damage from the mine blowout — tribal members along the San Juan River are heavily reliant on river water.

The Wall Street Journal eventually broke news on who the federal contractor was onsite when the mine blew out in August. To date, EPA has still been silent on the contractors involved in the spill, citing a nondisclosure agreement. In fact, EPA paid the contracting company, Environmental Restoration LLC, nearly $2.7 million after it caused the massive mine blowout, according to reporting from The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Ethan Barton.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

EPA released an internal review of the mine blowout in August claiming the incident was “likely inevitable” despite admitting agency workers ignored “expensive and technically challenging” procedures that could have prevented workers from blowing out the mine that day.

The finding was seen as an attempt by the agency to downplay its role in spilling millions of gallons of mine waste into people’s drinking water. EPA’s report was contradicted by an Department of the Interior technical review of incident, which found the blowout was completely preventable.Picture3

What’s more interesting is that, to date, no EPA employee or contractor has been punished or fired for the incident, despite the fact the agency took responsibility for the incident in August. No criminal investigations have been launched by the government into the incident. Instead, EPA officials have been accused of trying to undermine their own inspector general’s investigation into the spill. The nature of the IG’s investigation is unknown, as they don’t comment on details in ongoing investigations.

“[T]he Committee on Natural Resources is troubled by the EPA’s disclosure last week that it had recently interviewed two material witnesses to the EPA’s activities at Gold King Mine,” Republican Reps. Rob Bishop (R) of Utah and Louie Gohmert (TX) – R wrote to EPA’s inspector general.

“Specifically, the Committee is concerned that the EPA’s interview did not follow best investigative practices and may have interfered with the OIG’s ongoing investigation,” the lawmakers wrote to the agency.

stupid In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama Apologizing to the World for US on Climate Is Ridiculous


waving flagWritten by Nicolas Loris / / November 30, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/30/obama-apologizing-to-the-world-for-us-on-climate-is-ridiculous

President Barack Obama has dinner in Paris with French President Francois Hollande and others, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. (Photo: Thibault Camus/Reuters/Newscom)

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

President Obama’s opening remarks at the Paris climate agreement were effectively an apology for industrial progress. At the kickoff of the talks, Obama remarked, “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

Obama should not be apologizing for the economic growth that dramatically improved Americans’ and much of the world’s quality of life. Instead, the president should apologize for pushing costly and ineffective climate policies that will make us worse off and trap the world’s poorest citizens in poverty.Reality

The Cost of Climate Policies

Solid-Foundation-600-wLogoThe real problem facing American households and businesses is the Obama administration’s climate policies. The administration has finalized a slew of regulations to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Through a set of regulations known as the Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency has required states to meet carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for existing power plants.

At the same time, the EPA finalized a regulation capping emissions of carbon dioxide from new power plants so low as to effectively prevent any coal power plant from running without carbon capture and sequestration technology (which has yet to be proven feasible). The federal government also implemented climate regulations on vehicles, light and heavy-duty trucks, and fracking.

Heritage analysts modeled the cumulative costs of the Obama administration’s climate agenda by modeling the economic costs of a carbon tax. Taxing carbon dioxide energy incentivizes businesses and consumers to change production processes, technologies, and behavior in a manner comparable to the administration’s regulatory scheme—though neither regulations nor a tax is good policy. By 2030, Heritage economists estimate the damage would be:

  • An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs
  • A peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs
  • A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP)
  • A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per personEPA monster 2

The trade-off that Americans receive for higher electricity rates, unemployment, and lower levels of prosperity is not an appealing one. Even though electricity generation accounts for the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the estimated reduction is minuscule compared to global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, even if you do believe that the Earth is heading to catastrophic warming, the warming mitigated by the president’s plan would be barely measurable—unlike the economic consequences.Ponzi Scheme

Is Climate Change a Problem?

This “problem” of climate change is hardly one at all. Natural variations have altered the climate much more than man has. Proponents of global action on climate change will argue that 97 percent of the climatologists agree on climate change. There is significant agreement among climatologists, even those labeled as skeptics, that the Earth has warmed moderately over the past 60 years and that some portion of that warming may be attributed to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, there is no consensus that temperatures are increasing at an accelerating rate.

In fact, the available climate data simply do not indicate that the Earth is heading toward catastrophic warming or more frequent and severe natural disasters. Quite the opposite. The earth has experienced a pause in warming since 1998, and data shows that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions than the climate models predicted.

Dr. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, testified last year, saying:

… there exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.Settled-Science-600-LA

In his remarks, Obama stressed that “[n]o nation—large or small, wealthy or poor—is immune.” Such a sentiment also holds true for climate policies. Policies that restrict the use of conventional fuels will make everyone poorer. And it’s the poorest who will suffer most.

Let’s place blame on the policies and regulations that obstruct citizens around the world from obtaining a better standard of living.

Baal Worship A Collection In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Sen. Inhofe’s 81st Birthday Present: Senate Votes To Repeal EPA’s Global Warming Rules


waving flagReported by Michael Bastasch, 11/18/2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/sen-inhofes-81st-birthday-present-senate-votes-to-repeal-epas-global-warming-rules/#ixzz3rt5AuZsC

Senator James Inhofe.(Reuters / Gary Cameron)

Golden-Calf-NRD-600The Senate passed two resolutions under the Congressional Review Act Tuesday night repealing the key plank of the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming regulatory agenda.

Senators also happened to pass CRA resolutions against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan on Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe’s 81st birthday. Inhofe has been a lead Republican against the EPA’s climate regulations and even wrote a book calling global warming the “greatest hoax.”

“It brings me great joy for the Senate to come together in a majority, bipartisan vote to disapprove of this economically disastrous carbon mandate from the administration,” Inhofe said in a statement on the CRA votes.

 EPA Monster

President Barack Obama is almost certain to veto the legislation to repeal key parts of his Climate Action Plan, but senators hope these symbolic votes will show the president the majority of Americans oppose his regulations which could raise energy prices.

“This vote sends a clear signal to the international community that the American people will not stand in support for an agreement that would result in double-digit electricity prices in 40 states, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and have no meaningful impact on global warming,” Inhofe said. “In this country, it is Congress who writes the laws, not EPA.”

CRA bills were introduced by a bipartisan group of senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Worship manditoryKentucky and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Both bills passed in a 52 to 46 vote — a CRA bill only needs 51 votes to pass and allows Congress to block major regulations from taking affect.

Environmentalists and most Democrats came out against Tuesday’s CRA votes. Activists said the CRA bills were pointless because Obama would veto them and the international community is already set to agree to a global climate treaty next month.

“The GOP leadership has no plan to address dangerous carbon pollution and is hell-bent on blocking any progress on the central environmental challenge of our time,” David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

“With the international community poised to take unprecedented steps to combat climate change, it’s time for climate deniers to stop trying to block responsible leaders from protecting our health, our planet and the future of all our children,” Doniger said.DELUSIONAL

World leaders are set to meet in Paris this month for a United Nations climate summit that’s expected to yield a nature worshiped by the Leftistsuccessor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. The White House and environmentalist allies are pushing hard for some sort of agreement to cut global carbon dioxide emissions.

Much of the hope surrounding the Paris talks hinges on the fact that China and the U.S. have pledged to address global warming. China, however, has not pledged to make any actual cuts to emissions until after 2030. The U.S., on the other hand, has promised to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

Politicians and environmentalists are still optimistic about a treaty despite news that all the individual countries’ commitments taken together will have no Global-Warn-600-LAmeasurable impact on global warming, according to climate modelers.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg of problems plaguing any climate treaty. American opposition could also derail any meaningful U.N. agreement. Inhofe noted that “27 states, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural electric cooperatives, 10 major companies and 3 labor unions representing 878,000 members are now challenging the final rule in court.”

“This rule faces a dead end road with these entities requesting a judicial stay that will put the rule on hold early next year,” Inhofe said. “There will be no possibility of legislative resurrection once the courts render the final judgments on the president’s carbon mandates.”

EPA monster 2  In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Why Did the Environmental Protection Agency Spend $1.4 Million on Guns?


waving flagReported by Ed Feulner / / October 30, 2015

Open the Books found that the agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities.(Photo: Skyhobo/iStock)

Even those of us who have worked in Washington for many years and become accustomed to the inner workings of government can still be amazed by what lurks behind the curtain sometimes. Case in point: the Environmental Protection Agency. Most Americans have at least heard of the EPA, even if they have only a dim notion of what the agency actually does. It tends to skate along under the radar, unless something unusual happens, such as the toxic spill that turned the Colorado’s Animas River orange last August. Of course, what really made the spill unusual is that the EPA itself caused it.

Otherwise, Americans don’t hear much about the agency. So many of them would probably be as unpleasantly surprised as I was by a new report by Open the Books, a nonprofit group that promotes government transparency. Its look into the EPA’s spending habits is alarming, to put it mildly.

The first thing that strikes you is the EPA’s spendthrift ways. Even if times were flush and government coffers were overflowing (which is far from the case), the agency spends money like it’s expecting the Second Coming next week. The Open the Books audit covered tens of thousands of checks the EPA wrote from 2000 to 2014, with hundreds of millions going toward such things as luxury furnishings, sports equipment, and “environmental justice” grants to raise awareness of global warming.

The second thing that hits you is where the rest of the money goes. The headline of an op-ed by economist Stephen Moore in Investor’s Business Daily sums it up well: “Why Does the EPA Need Guns, Ammo, and Armor to Protect the Environment?” And not just a few weapons. Open the Books found that the agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books founder Adam Andrzejewski. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

Among the EPA’s purchases:

  • $1.4 million for “guns up to 300mm.”
  • $380,000 for “ammunition.”
  • $210,000 for “camouflage and other deceptive equipment.”
  • $208,000 for “radar and night-vision equipment.”
  • $31,000 for “armament training devices.”EPA Tyranny

The list goes on. It’s filled with the kind of equipment you’d expect to be purchased by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not an agency ostensibly designed to protect the environment.

But as it turns out, armed, commando-style raids by the EPA are not unheard of. One such raid occurred in 2013, in a small Alaskan town where armed agents in full body armor reportedly confronted local miners accused of polluting local waters. Perhaps the agency is gearing up for more operations like that one?

If so, the EPA wouldn’t be all that unique. According to the Justice Department, there are now 40 federal agencies with more than 100,000 officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests. They include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Comming Soon 02

The EPA audit underscores the need for serious budget cuts at the agency. In July, before the Colorado spill and the Open the Books report, environmental policy expert Nicolas Loris called on Congress to shrink the EPA’s budget, outlining several specific cuts that could be done immediately and with no detrimental effect on the environment.

“The proposed cuts outlined here merely scratch the surface of a rogue agency that has wildly spent and regulated outside its purview,” Loris concluded. After reviewing the Open the Books report, who can disagree?EPA monster 2

Originally published in The Washington Times.

Armed In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Did the EPA try to create its own militia?


waving flagPosted by on October 22, 2015

A congressional committee will investigate reports that the Environmental Protection Agency wasted billions of dollars, including an effort to create its own militia with a prosecution arm to mirror the FBI’s.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, told Watchdog.org that a House committee will dig into allegations the EPA bought designer furniture and sporting goods equipment, and handed out hefty employee bonuses and grants to foreign countries – including China.

The charges are outlined in a recent report by Open the Books, a non-profit dedicated to transparency and oversight of government spending. The group analyzed agency spending beginning in 2000.

Despite budget sequestration, which mandated cutbacks and no raises, the EPA has  thrived with its $8.13-billion budget, up $500 million from 2009. In fact, every president has increased the budget since Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“How can the EPA justify spending taxpayer dollars on questionable items like luxury furnishings and sports equipment?” asked Smith. “The agency also appears to have funneled millions of dollars to organizations outside the U.S. The EPA needs to remember they are accountable to the American taxpayer and should justify every dollar they spend.”EPA Monster

Smith, who heads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, reviewed a copy of the Open the Books report provided by Watchdog, and said the committee “intends to investigate the possible misuse of public funds.”

The EPA is already on Smith’s bad side for withholding requested documents pertaining to the Animas River spill in Colorado as the committee prepared for a Sept. 9 hearing. During the hearing, an EPA official told the committee the Gold King Mine was walled off as a result of a cave-in. In fact,  the EPA created the barricade, which allowed water to collect behind it — bursting when a hole was drilled, mine owner Todd Hennis told Watchdog.

Lawmakers in that hearing and another committee from the Senate blasted the EPA for its heavy-handed military-style treatment of citizens and companies who inadvertently create spills by “running them out of business” and “forcing them to go bankrupt.”EPA monster 2

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said the EPA should be contacting the FBI for heavy-duty law enforcement action if any is needed.

Regardless, some-200 EPA “special agents” have the “latest state-of-the-art ‘policing’ gear such as ‘guns and ammunition up to 300MM,’ ‘camouflage and other deceptive equipment,’ ‘night vision,’ ‘unmanned aircraft,’ ‘radar,’ ‘body armor,’ ‘surveillance equipment,’ ‘mobile GPS monitors,’ and (they) train and investigate frequently alongside joint projects with Homeland Security,” the report said.Tyranney Alert

Click here to read more from Watchdog.org.

The EPA and other federal agencies are out of control, constitutionally and otherwise. It’s time to bring them back in line. An Article V Convention of States can restore the Founders’ vision of a limited federal government and curb the power of this and other overreaching federal agencies.

Click here to get involved!

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: