Categories

Archive for the ‘Tyrants’ Category

This article perfectly summarizes the Russian-backed terrorists shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. First, here’s Putin’s propaganda:

In a tweet soon after the plane went down, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “Condolences to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak in connection with the crash of a passenger aircraft in Ukraine.”

A Kremlin statement said Putin opened a meeting with his economic advisers by calling for a moment of silence over the crash.

“This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine,” he said. “And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.”

Next, here’s Ukraine’s dismissal of Putin’s fabrications:

A statement from the Foreign Ministry in Kiev claimed the plane had been “shot down.”

“According to the General Staff of Ukrainian Armed Forces, the airplane was shot down by the Russian Buk missile system as the liner was flying at an altitude of 10,000 meters [33,000 feet],” the statement added. “Ukraine has no long-range air defense missile systems in this area. The plane was shot down, because the Russian air defense systems was affording protection to Russian mercenaries and terrorists in this area. Ukraine will present the evidence of Russian military involvement into the Boeing crash.”

There’s the crux of this situation. We’re forced into a binary choice. We either believe a former KGB agent who’s a trained liar or we believe the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

The trained KGB liar offered his condolences to the families his terrorists shot down. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry promised that they’ll offer proof that Putin’s terrorists shot this plane down.

It shouldn’t take long to decide who’s telling the truth. Hint: it isn’t the lying former KGB agent.

Meanwhile, President Obama spoke on this crisis for 40 seconds before returning to his planned speech.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

While discussing the Russian seperatists shooting down the Malaysian airliner, Charles Krauthammer unloaded both barrels on President Obama:

Here’s a partial transcript of what Charles said:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: What is the president’s reaction? You said what matters is not where he is. He’s had no reaction. He’s had no reaction to anything that I can tell in the last six months. Look, it isn’t as if we’re going to go to war with Russia, but we’ve denied Ukraine lethal weaponry on the grounds that we don’t want to escalate the conflict. The rebels and the Russians are killing Ukrainians in large numbers, by shooting them out of the sky. The least the president could do is make a damned decision for once in his life and announce that we are now going to supply lethal weapons to assist the Ukrainians to defend themselves and to complete the offensive that is now going on in Eastern Ukraine to actually destroy the rebel insurgents.

President Obama is a pacifist. Thanks to his disdain for conflict, Vladimir Putin is revving up the old expansionist Russian bear. It isn’t that Putin wants to destabilize the countries surrounding Russia. It’s that he wants Russia to return to its glory days of dominating its surrounding nations and telling them what to do.

Simply put, it looks like he wants to resurrect the Soviet Union.

Charles is right. President Obama has voted present on hundreds of major foreign policy/national security decisions since he was elected. It’s his nature to avoid conflict. It’s his history to make the worst possible decisions on the international stage. Killing bin Laden is his only accomplishment.

Meanwhile, Putin is enjoying the free ride he’s getting from President Obama:

Security Services of Ukraine chief Valentyn Nalivaichenko, at a late night news conference, said the government is making all evidence in the investigation public, including intercepted phone calls between two members of the Russian military special services unit, known as the GRU, in which they discussed shooting down the airplane.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied any involvement, saying Ukraine is responsible.

Putin knows he’s lying. That’s what KGB agents do. Further, Putin knows that he might get called out. That isn’t what’s important to him. His biggest concern, other than dominating Ukraine, is to prop himself up inside Russia. The more powerful he looks, the more political capital he accumulates.

Russian-backed separatist commander Igor Girkin, also known as Strelkov, initially claimed credit for the downing of a military transport airplane. He revised his statement later. “We did warn you – do not fly in our sky,” he wrote on VK.com, Russia’s version of Facebook.

It’s times like this that make me wish someone like Benjamin Netanyahu was our president. It’s depressing knowing we have a do-nothing president that won’t standd with our allies and who lets our enemies run free while terrorizing their neighbors.

We’d better elect a real president next time. If we get Hillary, we won’t call it “the former Soviet Union.”

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Andrew Napolitano’s op-ed for Fox News is a great history lesson of the Nixon administration’s and the Obama administration’s attempts to suppress political speech. It’s today’s must reading. Here’s Judge Napolitano’s illustration of how the Nixon administration suppressed speech:

Classic examples of “chilling” occurred in the 1970s, when FBI agents and U.S. Army soldiers, in business suits with badges displayed or in full uniform, showed up at anti-war rallies and proceeded to photograph and tape record protesters. When an umbrella group of protesters sued the government, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the protesters lacked standing, meaning, because they could not show that they were actually harmed, they could not invoke the federal courts for redress.

Here’s what Judge Napolitano highlighted about the Obama administration’s attempt to suppress political speech:

So, what has the Obama administration done to stifle, or chill, the words of its detractors? For starters, it has subpoenaed the emails and home telephone records of journalists who have either challenged it or exposed its dark secrets. Among those journalists are James Risen of The New York Times and my colleague and friend James Rosen of Fox News. This is more personal than the NSA spying on everyone, because a subpoena is an announcement that a specific person’s words or effects have been targeted by the government, and that person continues to remain in the government’s crosshairs until it decides to let go.

This necessitates hiring legal counsel and paying legal fees. Yet, the targeting of Risen and Rosen was not because the feds alleged that they broke the law, there were no such allegations. Rather, the feds wanted to see their sources and their means of acquiring information. What journalist could perform his work with the feds watching? The reason we have a First Amendment is to assure that no journalist would need to endure that.

To his credit, Rosen hasn’t stopped asking tough questions while reporting on the touchiest of subjects. Though there’s no question that Mr. Rosen and his family have felt pressured by the government, Mr. Rosen has continued doing his job.

I suspect that that’s due in large part to his bosses, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, have told him that they have his back. Further, I’m certain that his co-workers, people like Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly, Greta van Susteren, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Fox’s correspondents, have showed him that they’ve got his back, too.

The point is that people can withstand a tyrannical administration’s attempts to chill political speech if a) they’re suppported by their colleagues and b) they’re willing to show that administration that they won’t be intimidated.

That’s the lesson in this tyranny. There’s nothing that’ll send a stronger message to a tyrant than saying that you can’t be intimidated. Admittedly, that’s easier said than done. Still, the rewards can be tremendous and the respect gained from colleagues immense. It’s what’s needed in stopping a bully like this:

Two weeks ago, a notorious pot stirrer in Norfolk, Neb., built a mock outhouse, put it on a truck and drove the truck with permission in a local Fourth of July parade. In front of the outhouse, he placed a mannequin that he claimed looked like himself, and on the outhouse, he posted a sign that stated: “Obama Presidential Library.”

Some thought this was crude, and some thought it was funny; yet it is fully protected speech. It is protected because satire and opinion about public figures are absolutely protected, as well as is all criticism of the government. Yet, the Department of Justice has sent a team to investigate this event because a local official called it racist. Such an allegation by a public official and such a federal investigation are chilling. The reason we have a First Amendment is to ensure that the government stays out of investigating speech.

There’s no question that President Obama and his chief henchman bristled when they saw this. President Obama has the thinnest skin of any American president in my lifetime. It’s one thing to not like it when people poke fun at you. It’s quite another to start a federal investigation when someone pokes fun at the president.

President Obama’s history has been to eliminate his political opponents whenever possible. When that isn’t possible, he’s resorted to Gestapo-like tactic. Threats and intimidation are definitely part of his ‘weaponry.’

The most indespensible tool in fights like this, again, is to show people you’re willing to stand up to their bullying tactics. Another great tool is to get people rallying around you. That’ happened in Rosen’s case. What hasn’t happened, though, is that Democrats haven’t shown they’ve got the integrity required to stand up to a thug in their own party.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to permit, encourage and even foment open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. That amendment presumes that individuals, not the government, will decide what language to read and hear. Because of that amendment, the marketplace of ideas, not the government, will determine which criticisms will sink in and sting and which will fall by the wayside and be forgotten.

This is one of those times when the best defense is a great offense. Nothing stops a bully as quickly as giving them a bloody nose or taking out their knee. That’ll send the message that you’re prepared for battle. That, more than anything else, will give a bully pause.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t surprising that the UAW would run to the NLRB for a shoulder to cry on after suffering a humiliating defeat in its attempt to unionize the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee. It isn’t even surprising that the UAW is attempting to silence opposition to the unionization movement:

On Feb. 14, the workers made their voices heard, with 53% voting against allowing the UAW to represent them. I believe that the workers understood that they were nothing more than dollar signs for the UAW. Obviously, I could not have been happier for the Volkswagen employees, for the community and for Tennessee.

Unfortunately, the UAW has chosen to ignore the employees’ decision and has filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that elected officials like me should not be allowed to make public comments expressing our opinion and sharing information with our constituents. It is telling that the UAW complaint does not mention President Obama’s public statement urging the employees to vote for the union.

Ordinarily, the NLRB’s rulings aren’t reviewed by the courts. If the NLRB rules that it was improper for public officials to speak about the UAW’s unionization drive, their ruling will get taken to court, where they’ll lose badly.

If the NLRB issues such a ruling, they’ll be exposed as Big Labor’s corrupt shills. They’ll lose credibility in the eyes of the average citizen.

Most importantly, the UAW will be exposed as sore losers who had run of the VW plant for 2 years and who didn’t face management opposition for that time but still couldn’t win the organizing election. That’s pretty pathetic.

Technorati: , , , , ,

After reading this article, I’m wondering if I’m living the United States or in the former Soviet Union. Seriously, does anyone think that governments should be able to use eminent domain to take private property from a family to build biking hiking trails? That’s what Dakota County is attempting to do:

The county is seeking a “quick-take” condemnation, effectively a compelled sale, of four parcels of land in the park reserve, offering a total of about $2 million.

County commissioners voted in November to take the land, saying the properties are a key part of a planned trail and other features.

What’s more important: private property rights or giving government to take any piece of land to do with it whatever it wants to do? This is stealing. What’s especially appalling is the taking of the land to build biking and hiking trails. What’s worse is that Dakota County is attempting to steal this private property for a questionable project while offering the property owners settlements at far less than fair market value:

Aho said the county hasn’t shown enough progress on other planned improvements besides the trail to demonstrate a need for condemnation.

She also said the county’s offer for the land, $370,000, “drastically undervalued” assets like a marina and 1,000-plus feet of lakeshore.

After WWII, eminent domain was used to buy the land needed to build the interstate highway or other high priority pieces of infrastructure that led to great increases of wealth and prosperity to the masses. Since Kelo v. New London, eminent domain has been used to take property from private property owners and give it to government so it can create parks or bike trails.

What’s upsetting to me is that Dakota County thinks that the perceived wishes of the many are more important than the rights of the individual. They aren’t. First, the community’s wish list shouldn’t rate as a higher priority than a private property landowner’s rights. The thought that the landowner’s rights are getting set aside is disturbing enough. The thought that they’re getting set aside for something as frivolous as a community park is especially upsetting.

Next, it’s worth noting that special interest organizations are likely behind this taking. County commissioners don’t just wake up one morning and say to themselves ‘Hey, let’s create a new park.’ It isn’t a stretch to think that they’re approached by special interest organizations who have an agenda but who don’t live near the proposed takings.

Finally, check out the government’s arrogance:

“There’s a great need for this,” commissioner Kathleen Gaylord said at the meeting. “We do need to move forward. The board has come to the conclusion that it is time to move forward. This is a needed piece of property in order to complete our trail in the Spring Lake Park area and to provide the access to the park that our master plan has envisioned for decades. We’re just coming to the head now. It’s time to move forward.”

The board’s conclusion. The commissioners’ needs. The project’s vision. What’s appalling is that Kathy Gaylord and 5 other commissioners put the government’s wish list ahead of the private property owner’s rights. Apparently, Kathy Gaylord and the other slugs who voted to take this land don’t care about these families’ rights.

Anytime that government puts a higher priority on their projects than they put on individuals’ rights, our nation moves closer to authoritarian rule. That isn’t who we are as a nation.

We The People should reject this type of tyrannical government ASAP.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats defensively say that they’re defending the Second Amendment but that isn’t the truth. If they were, they wouldn’t make the statements like this:

“What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners’ right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?” he asked.

The true test of whether Democrats are advocates of a citizen’s right to protect himself, his family or his business is whether they’ll fight for Chicago shopkeepers’ rights to protect themselves with a handgun. Unless they’re willing to tell fanatics like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg, John Hickenlooper and Andrew Cuomo that their policies are anti-constitutional and dangerous, then Democrats shouldn’t be given credibility during Second Amendment conversations.

I’m not interested in finding ‘common ground’ with Constitution-hating zealots like Andrew Cuomo or Rahm Emanuel. Politicians like them are far beyond the mainstream on the Second Amendment. If they want to admit that they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment and that they’re changing their position by 180 degrees, then there’s room to talk. If they aren’t willing to change their position, there isn’t much to talk about.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

One way the left has quietly, insidiously, killed the American economy is through the dirty tricks it plays with unelected bureaucrats. This op-ed by private property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen shows how the federal government ignores laws while destroying what’s left of people’s private property rights:

Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government’s discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by “direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.”

The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.

Why have laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws with impunity? Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s what should frighten people:

Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government’s discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by “direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.”

The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.

Why have federal laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws, then bullies landowners in their attempt to restrict private property rights? That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. After having BLM bureaucrats ignore him, Mr. VanDenBerg decided to apply a little common sense to the situation:

In complete frustration at the bureaucratic delays and denials, VanDenBerg decided to use an existing road to get to his property. This road, noted as an existing road on the 2005 San Juan National Forest map and known as County Road 33A, has been in existence since 1886. The road was clearly visible on the ground as well as noted on the federal government’s maps. VanDenBerg cut dead fall timber from the roadway and moved it out of the way. Although he followed the tracks of the road and he did not get out of the roadway that has existed for over 125 years, the BLM charged him with civil trespass charges in federal district court.

This seems pretty straightforward. The road is visible from the ground. It’s highlighted on federal maps. Mr. VanDenBerg removed some dead fall timber from the road because the federal government hadn’t maintained the road like they were obligated to do. In most citizens’ eyes, he should get a good citizens award for his efforts. That isn’t what happened, though:

Not wanting to expend the money on a huge and expensive trial, VanDenBerg decided to settle with the BLM. The settlement agreement states that VanDenBerg does not admit to ANY of the claims or assertions put forward by the government and that he is simply reimbursing the federal government for the reclamation of the dead trees he cut. Although he did not want to settle with the federal government, he recognized that the largest law firm in the world, the U.S. Justice Department, represents the federal government and that he would be buried in litigation costs. He thought a settlement agreement would end the matter and that the BLM would process his application so that he could have the access to his private property that he was promised by Congress.

Before the ink on the agreement was barely dry, the U.S. Attorney’s Office issued a “press release” that incorrectly labels VanDenBerg as a “trespasser” and claiming his attempt to access his own private property is “unauthorized.” The release also states that VanDenBerg’s actions occurred in a “wilderness.” VanDenBerg had disputed all of those statements. Even the settlement agreement itself noted that these statements are only allegations by the U.S., yet their press release states them as fact.

When asked about the false and misleading statements in the press release (in addition to noting that VanDenBerg denied all of the allegations in the settlement agreement), the U.S. Attorney noted in an e-mail to VanDenBerg’s attorney, “While I realize that you and your client were disappointed in the press release,…it is routine for this office to issue press releases on these kinds of settlements, especially in cases where the conduct is of the kind that we hope to deter in the future.”

At this point, you’re thinking ‘that stinks but at least that isn’t happening in my state’, right? Though the specifics in this article are changed, the goal remains the same:

The report recommends a revitalized EQB, with up to 10 staffers, more than double the current level.

Agriculture Commissioner Dave Fredrickson, chair of the EQB, said the environment will benefit if the board can plan ahead.

“They can look into the future and anticipate problems that we may hit head-on, so rather than react, we can as a board act on some of those important issues,” Fredrickson said.

He cited silica sand mining; the board has been asked to do a broad review called a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on that subject. If the board had more staff, it could proceed.

Why must the EQB exist? Here’s what the EQB is:

The Environmental Quality Board includes the heads of nine state agencies and four citizens.

Does Minnesota government need 9 different agencies to protect the environment? That isn’t likely. In fact, it’s exceptionally likely that most of those oversight agencies were created to placate environmentalists.

Whether the federal or state government is involved in the environment, the goal isn’t to protect the environment. It’s to limit people’s private property rights.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s apparent that President Obama carries some pretty nasty grudges. That was in plain view after the Supreme Court ruling on SB1070. The minute that they upheld the section that got the most publicity, President Obama’s vindictiveness flashed into public view. At that precise moment, he stripped Arizona law enforcement of their 287(g) capabilities.

That’s the face of vindictiveness.

It’s equally apparent that he’ll fight for his allies even if it means ignoring the Constitution or this nation’s laws. This op-ed makes a compelling case that President Obama won’t hesitate to ignore this nation’s laws if that’s what’s needed to fight for his friends:

When the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel exposed the fact that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list? They just couldn’t understand it.

The first proof we had of President Obama’s lawlessness was when he told auto executives that their secured bondholders wouldn’t get their money, that they’d have to wait in line until after the UAW got their money first.

At a private meeting, President Obama told the auto executives that he was the only person standing between them and angry mobs. The clear implication was that these bondholders would have to forfeit their rights to people who didn’t have any rights to the spoils.

We saw President Obama ignore common sense when he shoved Solyndra’s loan down our throats even though he knew they were going bankrupt. Those aren’t the only examples:

This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don’t even exist. He isn’t interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them.

This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities, he just dictates them through executive order. Don’t enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution’s old fashioned limits to executive power.

For most of my life, I’ve heard a phrase repeated again and again that I can’t shake. America is a “nation of laws, not men.” For most of my adult life, that’s been true. The hallmark of this administration has been the opposite. In President Obama’s practice, America is a nation of his whims and preferences. If this nation’s laws don’t fit his agenda, then he’s ignored this nation’s laws.

It isn’t possible to credibly argue that President Obama hasn’t attempted to do through executive orders and regulations what he couldn’t accomplish legislatively.

After he’s defeated this fall, most people won’t miss his ruthlessness or lawlessness. They’ll breath a sigh of relief that his ill-advised policies won’t adversely affect their lives.

Investors will breath an even bigger sigh of relief because they won’t have to worry about the bullseye this administration painted on their backs.

The downside is that President Obama created a pool of people who think that people with money should be punished. In fact, many of the lefty bloggers here in Minnesota think like that.

They hate prosperity. They love omnipotent government.

Many in the media have swooned over “The One.” He isn’t “The One.” This administration’s hardline followers are cultists; he’s their James Jones.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If there was any doubt that Wisconsin Democrats were thugs, this video shows who they are:

With the recall election closing in fast, Democrats are resorting to arson in venting their frustration. TMJ4 issued this report:

Vandals are torching pro-Walker yard signs, and now homeowners and neighbors are worried the crimes could escalate. Someone set fire to at least five Walker campaign signs here in Fox Point.

Jamie Schumaker came out of his Fox Point home to get the paper Sunday morning to find his small Governor Walker campaign sign reduced to ashes, a sign he put up just the day before.

“You’d like to disagree agreeably and not have to resort to something like this,” said Schumaker to TODAY’S TMJ4.

Schumaker said he’s an avid Walker supporter, even a donor, and said this is upsetting. His neighbor’s sign ruined the same way. “I’d hate to see this kind of intimidation and threats creep into certainly this election,” said Schumaker.

The Fox Point Police Department said they’ve had several complaints of burned Walker signs and in response, they plan to put out extra patrols. “There’s a better way to express your political opinion that to burn someone’s sign,” said North Shore Fire Department Chief Robert Whitaker.

There’s no question but that Democrats are behind these torchings. Remember the thug tactics of AFSCME Democrats:

Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,” the letter said.

Wisconsin Republicans love Scott Walker for obvious reasons. They aren’t the arsonists destroying pro-Scott Walker signs. While it’s true that some independents don’t agree with Gov. Walker, it isn’t likely that independents are torching the pro-Scott Walker signs.

That leaves only one group torching signs. It’s the group that’s shown a propensity for attacking people they disagree with.

These Democratic activists’ actions are hurting Democrats in another way that the thugs probably haven’t thought about. The Democrats’ thuggish behavior are hurting President Obama’s campaign through his association with them.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s a great day in America, albeit a rare one, when an Obama-appointed judge limits the power of President Obama’s EPA, then mocks the EPA for its institutional arrogance. According to Don Surber’s post, that’s precisely what happened:

First and foremost, EPA’s interpretation fails because it is illogical and impractical. EPA claims that it is not revoking a permit, something it does not have the authority to do, because it is only withdrawing a specification. Yet EPA simultaneously insists that its withdrawal of the specification effectively nullifies the permit. To explain how this would be accomplished in the absence of any statutory provision or even any regulation that details the effect that EPA’s belated action would have on an existing permit, EPA resorts to magical thinking. It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration. Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated, but the possibility that it could happen would leave permittees in the untenable position of being unable to rely upon the sole statutory touchstone for measuring their Clean Water Act compliance: the permit.

It is further unreasonable to sow a lack of certainty into a system that was expressly intended to provide finality. Indeed, this concern prompted a number of amici to take up their pens and submit briefs to the Court. They argued that eliminating finality from the permitting process would have a significant economic impact on the construction industry, the mining industry, and other “aggregate operators,” because lenders and investors would be less willing to extend credit and capital if every construction project involving waterways could be subject to an open-ended risk of cancellation.

The EPA’s ruling is dripping with disdain for parts of the private sector. It’s apparent that the EPA hates coal and the companies that mine for it. It’s apparent, too, that Lisa Jackson’s EPA thinks it’s empowered to run roughshod over industries it doesn’t like.

This lawsuit is finished. The EPA can appeal the ruling to higher courts but this lawsuit is finished. When a judge rules that there’s no authority in any of the statutes that supports the EPA’s actions, that isn’t likely to get overturned.

What’s even better is that this coal-mining company might be eligible for compensation from the Equal Access to Justice Act since they proved their case. If they qualify for EAJA compensation, it means they’d get their legal bills paid by the federal government.

It’s a great day for justice in America.

Tags: , , , , , ,