I think we can all agree that we need to be responsible and take care of this marvelous planet God has given us. But we should never make man a slave or subservient to the planet, and that is what radical environmentalists are doing to people through the EPA.
As I wrote about some time back, Chantell and Michael Sackett bought some land and were proceeding to build their dream house…when fascists from the EPA came in and shut them down. The reason? They were supposedly building on some ephemeral “wetland” (as if critters who live in “wetlands” can’t move somewhere else and continue to survive, just like the spotted owls who have been found making nests in K-Mart signs).
This video from Reason.tv ilustrates the tyranny of this out-of-control government agency and how it destroys the individuals this nation was founded to protect. You need to listen to the entire video to grasp the depth of the asininity of environmentalist regulations, and the extent of the tyranny.
From the description of the video:
The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States. So how did a small-town couple from Northern Idaho ever become the center of such a momentous case? Reason.tv talked with the Sacketts and their attorney to find out…
The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately. The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.
The EPA responded issued what’s known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day…
The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.
“The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts’ case. “EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up.”..
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.