-Caveat Lector- visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:06:16 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SNET: The EPA: An Agency out of Control -> SNETNEWS Mailing List Bob's Note: Perhaps I should, with the forwarding of this excellent article, reiterate MY recently enacted 'Forfeiture Law' for the private dwelling of sovereign citizens known to the United States Postal Service, LLC, as Route 8 Box 422, Gilmer, Texas 75644-8825............... "If any person or persons from any governmental, quasi-governmental or non-governmental [NGO] agency, come onto my sovereign land, up my driveway or approach my home with the intent to violate any of my God-given rights, I will shoot-to-kill, NO questions asked." "They " will FORFEIT their life for an infraction that has, for too long now, been taken for granted, albeit false and incorrect, that law enforcement/government does not always have to abide by common law or the Laws of God. If we had just one percent of our nation (2.6 million up- standing, God-fearing patriotic citizens) take this view and this stand, perchance we could get our servant, our government, to fear us instead of the master (the sovereign citizen) fearing the servant (the "government"). Most Respectfully Submitted, Bob Worn, Major-USAF (Retired) Route 8 Box 422 Gilmer, Texas 75644-8825 903-734-6970 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Original Message Follows~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The EPA: An Agency out of Control By U.S. Rep. John Hostettler September 29, 2000 When it comes to government policies that impact your employment, property and pocketbook, who would you prefer to make the decisions - an elected public servant from your community or an unaccountable bureaucrat living hundreds of miles away? If you prefer public policies affecting you and your family to be made by duly elected officials, you're in good company. Our system of government, both at the federal level and in Indiana, is based on the enactment and enforcement of laws by representatives of the people. This model has worked well for more than 200 years. But if you prefer to hand such decisions over to unaccountable and unelected outsiders, you will be pleased with the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. This increasingly aggressive federal agency is eroding the ability of the people and their elected representatives to govern. In the last few months alone, the EPA has bypassed existing laws, ignored Congress, discounted sound science, and engaged in job-threatening, billion-dollar lawsuits when it couldn't get its way. EPA actions threaten the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers, jeopardize manufacturing jobs, and risk driving up energy costs, all without the backing of law or science. The latest outrage is the agency's new clean water regulations that threaten to turn landowners into lawbreakers in the event of a heavy rain. The new rules add farming, ranching and forestry operations to a measurement known as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the amount of particles from soil and other runoff that is carried into streams, rivers and lakes. The Clean Water Act required TMDL measurements only for sources of pollution originating from one point, such as specific industrial sites, but the EPA determined that enforcing the law was not enough. The new rule goes so far that farmers face the need to get federal permission just to irrigate their crops and fields. To prevent the rules from taking effect, Congress added to an appropriation bill a measure prohibiting implementation of the rules. But President Clinton delayed signing the bill so the EPA could finalize the rules without violating the law - if only by a day or so. As a result, the EPA will heap billions in additional regulatory costs onto states, local governments and landowners without making our water any cleaner. Many state officials believe they will be forced to spend their time and resources on paperwork and litigation rather than solving real water quality problems. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that just one element of the EPA's plan would cost $100 million or more in one year. A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report questioned the cost and benefits of these rules. According to the report, the GAO "found limitations with EPA's economic analyses of the proposed regulations that raise questions about their reasonableness and about the determinations that the EPA has based them on." The report added that the "EPA provided little information of the benefits associated with the proposed regulations . . . [W]ithout information on both costs and benefits, it is difficult to confirm that the regulation is economically justified." The EPA overlooks the fact that no one has a greater interest in stewardship of the land and water than the farmers whose livelihoods depends on these resources. The agency apparently believes that its 18,000 bureaucrats, many who work and live in metropolitan Washington, D.C., care more. While EPA Administrator Carol Browner acknowledges that the U.S. enjoys "the safest, most abundant food supply in the world," her agency has placed tight restrictions on the widely used pesticides and herbicides that resulted in a safe and abundant food supply. As a result, farmers will be left without alternatives to some of their most important pest deterrents. Browner wants to declare the nation's highest-use herbicide, Atrazine, a "likely" carcinogen despite the fact that her agency's Scientific Advisory Panel unanimously rejected the proposal. The EPA restricted an anti-termite chemical found in nearly 800 products despite three separate human tests which found the product to be safe. It also placed restrictions on two other commonly used crop protection products azinphos methyl and methyl parathion - before completion of scientific policies intended to guide the EPA in implementing food quality protection regulations. In other words, the EPA is making decisions impacting farmers and our food supply based on a political agenda, not science. And that's not just my opinion. The National Research Council, in an independent assessment of the EPA's research and scientific peer-review procedures, found that "[s]cience...in many cases has not even been a major determinant of EPA's decisions." Another example of the EPA ignoring science occurred in 1997 when the EPA made changes in clean air standards mandating that particles as small as 2.5 microns - a fraction of the width of a human hair and four times smaller than particles previously restricted - must be detected and eliminated. Farmers and business owners were understandably concerned about these stringent and unscientific regulations, and the EPA was taken to court. The U.S. Court of Appeals declared the standards unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to make a final ruling (Ha!) early next year. In the meantime, the EPA plans to go forward with the designation process, threatening to turn several Indiana communities into non-attainment areas. If a region is found to be out of compliance, the EPA can impose costly new controls on farming, business, and industry, driving up prices and requiring controls on items such as lawnmowers and charcoal grills. Losing in court is nothing new for the EPA. A report by Jonathan Adler for the Reason Public Policy Institute found the EPA wins fewer than half its cases before the court with primary jurisdiction over the regulatory activities of most federal agencies. But these setbacks haven't deterred the EPA from regularly calling up its lawyers. Why? One reason is that many of the agency's targets decide to settle rather than face the prospect of a long and costly lawsuit against the unlimited resources of the federal government. In other words, the EPA can accomplish its goals through extortion even when the law is not on its side. Two such lawsuits could have an impact on Southern Indiana. In 1999, the EPA filed a lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. for possibly tens of billions of dollars. A few months later the agency leveled a suit against local electric utility plants for making "illegal" repairs. In the first case, the EPA asked the Department of Justice to sue Toyota over the "check engine" dashboard light on two- and three-year-old model cars. Toyota had met EPA qualifications for onboard diagnostics, but after 1996 and 1997 models were on the road the agency "reinterpreted" the regulations and sued the manufacturer for noncompliance. The suit did not contend that the models polluted the air. While the cars in question were not manufactured at the Toyota plant in Princeton, these massive, frivolous lawsuits divert company funds that could otherwise be directed toward further growth and development, employee benefits, or other positive economic initiatives for the thousands of Hoosiers who work there. Fortunately, Toyota - unlike other car manufacturers that paid millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements chose to fight the suit. In February, an arbitrator ruled in Toyota's favor. Then the EPA sued 32 electric utility plants in 10 states - including Indiana - at the request of officials from four eastern states who claimed plant emissions dirtied their air. It was the first time the EPA sought to crack down on air pollution in one state on behalf of another. What crimes had the utility companies committed? According to the lawsuit, routine maintenance at the facilities violated the Clean Air Act because the work extended the life of the plants and amounted to modifications without a permit. Although some of the work took place as long as 10 years ago, the EPA sought to impose fines of $27,000 per violation, per day, from the time when the work was done to the present. That put the utility companies in the impossible position of having to choose between maintenance of their plants or possible criminal charges and further fines. Either option threatens the reliable supply of electric power and is likely to cause energy costs to rise. All these actions have the potential to cause major economic turmoil without yielding any public health benefits. When given the rather obvious connection between livelihoods and living standards, squandering billions of dollars in productive assets could actually harm health and safety, costing jobs and stunting growth across the nation. We all want a clean and healthy environment. But the EPA's tendency to invent policy instead of enforcing the law is a dangerous trend. When elected officials pass legislation they are accountable to voters. Unaccountable bureaucrats, on the other hand, can create policy out of thin air, using the weight of the federal government to coerce Americans into compliance. When that happens the people cease to govern....................... -> To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
