Category Archives: Government Agencies

Regulations: When are they enough!

A story out of Corpus Christi Texas has just sent my mind reeling.   First I will credit Todd Starnes of Fox News for bringing this to my attention and say any quotes in this story are from his report on this incident.  Let’s begin with the insanity.

It seems a business owner in Corpus Christi like to keep the front of his restaurant clean.  One day he was washing bid poop off the sidewalk of his establishment.  What happened next borders on the ridiculous.

A restaurant owner in Corpus Christi, Texas is furious after city officials threatened him with a  $2,000 fine for using a garden hose to wash away bird droppings on the sidewalk in front of his business.

“They told me I can’t wash it off because I’m polluting,” said John Webb, general manager of Crawdaddy’s, a family-owned restaurant in downtown. “It’s like they want me to go out of business.”

Huh?  Washing bird droppings is polluting?  How is that possible.  Birds poop on the surface of the earth quite often and I have never heard of it being a pollutant.  So the business owner very wisely asked the city official for guidance.  What comes next is sublime.

“For the last 18 years we’ve just been washing it off with a water hose,” he said. “But a guy from the city came out here and told me if I washed my sidewalk off again I was going to get a fine.”

Webb said he was threatened with a $2,000 fine.

“He said ‘Well, you can’t wash it off because you’re polluting,’” he recalled.

The city official reportedly told Webb that he had two options – he could either hire a professional cleaning crew to remove the bird poop – or he could just let the rain wash it away. Webb said he was dumbfounded.

I was dumbfounded too.  Bear in mind this is Texas, one of the states with the least regulations on many things in the country.  So let’s break this conversation down.  If I hire a clean up crew to remove small splats of bird droppings from my sidewalk what would that do to my expense line?  How would that effect my work force? More importantly if I let the rain fall wash it away how effective will that be and where would the runoff go?  You got it the same place it will go if I wash it off.

The article cited the city official as saying this.

Webb said he was told that civilians cannot wash away bird droppings because it was “against city, state and federal law – I was polluting the bay.”

The environmental lunacy continues folks.  Time to stop them.

Here is a link to Todd’s Story.


Leave a comment

Filed under Government Agencies

Homeland Security?

Yesterday an almost gleeful Janet Napolitano released the following statement after the Supreme Court struck down three sections of the Arizona Immigration law.  But upheld the one with the most teeth.  Here is that statement.

Statement by Secretary Napolitano on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States

Release Date: June 25, 2012

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

“I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities. DHS remains focused on enhancing public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally. The Court’s decision not to strike down Section Two at this time will make DHS’ work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities. Over the past three and half years, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws in a firm and reasonable fashion. We continue to urge Congress to pass comprehensive reform because nothing short of a comprehensive solution will resolve the current patchwork of immigration laws. Finally, it is important to note that today’s Supreme Court decision will not impact the memorandum I issued on June 15th related to prosecutorial discretion eligibility for productive members of society who were brought to the United States as children.”

Did you read it carefully?  What is Janet telling us?  Here is a short list

1. The federal government does not care if someone enters the country illegally.  Nope  they only care if they commit deadly crimes.  But minor offenses are okay.  Never mind that they broke our laws big time just walking across the unprotected border.

2. The government is spending more time and money and being more compassionate about our policy.  So Janet and Barry get to enforce the law in whatever manner they wish?  Sorry Protect and Defend does not mean selective enforcement.  Illegal is Illegal and you are not spending our money wisely if this statement is true

3. Janet is going to shut down Arizona’s access to ICE!  Period.  What do you think Operational changes toward Arizona means.  While the Supreme Court  let this provision stand (and for good reason) Napolitano and her boss figured out they can just unplug the phone from Arizona and ignore the real issues.

4. Selective enforcement!  Selective enforcement!  If they were to get the border under control, we could begin real enforcement.  How would I describe our current methods of stopping illegals and deporting the ones we do catch?  Did you ever see a hamster on a wheel?  Running in circles, that pretty much sums it up.  We kick them out (a lot less than before) and they come right back in.

The Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona had  a nice little present for the Obama Administration today.  You can read it here.

Good Job Sheriff Joe at least law enforcement in Arizona is doing its job.  How about Washington next.  Let’s move Janet out of her cushy office and back home to Arizona.  Yes folks Big Sis is screwing her own constituents and happy to do it for Obama.  See you in November.


Filed under Government Agencies, Immigration, Uncategorized

The Food Police

You are an engaged parent and you actually take the time to pack a lunch for your child.  Off she goes to a preschool program.  At lunch time the sack lunch you packed is scrutinized and determined not to reach government standards.  How dare you pack Ho-Hos and Twinkies in your child’s lunch!   There is only one problem with this scenario, that is not what you packed.  What was in the sack?  Here is what the mother reported was packed in the bag via a Newscore report copied for the Fox affiliate for LA.

The West Hoke Elementary School student’s lunch box — which contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice

Imagine the horror the food police must have endured when the “inspected” the child’s lunch!  SO what did the Food Police at this North Carolina school do?  Supplement the healthy meal with a vegetable?  Nope they took her lunch and gave her a government approved platter of which the child only ate three chicken nuggets because she did not like anything else on the plate.  To make matters worse since the child was not part of the lunch program they sent a bill to the mother for $1.25.  I have to tell you this event would send me into a fit the likes no one has ever seen.  But what is not the question, the real question is why. Here is the answer.

A regulation from the state’s Department of Health and Human Services says lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — even those brought from home — should adhere to the USDA guidelines. If a student’s packed lunch lacks any of the required items, the child should be provided with the missing foods.

The USDA suggests meals should contain one meat portion, one serving of milk, one serving of grains and two portions of fruit or vegetables.

The federal government is mandating what your child must eat at school and states are placing inspectors (this school has one) in schools to make sure you are feeding your children according to their standards.   When will we wake up and call an end to this madness.  Are we free people or not?  According to the USDA  we are not.  If your child goes to a preschool they must eat what the government says whether you pack it or not.  Are you starting to see the picture.  I have said from the time I started this blog that the government agencies are out of control and this is further proof of that.

Folks it is time to rise up and be counted.  We are being regulated into submission by our government.  The time to act is now.  Stop  the madness and force congress to take back its power and stop letting agencies of the government write laws.  Every regulation written by a government agency has the weight of law behind it. Each agency has investigative wings to make sure the people do as they are told.  This is not the United States I want for my children.

Call your Senators and Representatives, go to a campaign event for the candidate of your choice (or all of them for that matter) and try to ask the question about congressional oversight of agencies.

Read more:



Filed under Government Agencies

Forced Electric Cars

The other day I read a story that the State of California passed the strictest emissions laws in the nation.  This new “law” would require 15.4% of cars sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles.  The story cited the California Air Resources Board as the group that established this “law”.  We will dispense with the usual Government agency making laws without votes.  That seems to have died on the vine, but it holds true here.

This board has been around a long time and they set the standard (regulations) in California.  But the story gets scarier.  Here from the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Seeking to influence other states and Washington, California air regulators passed sweeping auto emission standards Friday that include a mandate to have 1.4 million electric and hybrid vehicles on state roads by 2025.

The California Air Resources Board unanimously approved the new rules that require that one in seven of the new cars sold in the state in 2025 be an electric or other zero-emission vehicle.

The plan also mandates a 75 percent reduction in smog-forming pollutants by 2025, and a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from today’s standards.

Automakers worked with the board and federal regulators on the greenhouse gas mandates in an effort to create one national standard for those pollutants.

“Today’s vote … represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole,” said Mary Nichols, the board’s chairman. “Californians have always loved their cars. We buy a lot of them and drive them. Now we will have cleaner and more efficient cars to love.”

Are you getting this?  California wants to force the rest of the nation to buy zero-emission cars.  They formulated this plan with the Automakers and the Federal regulators.  I smell a big fat environmental rat.

The car companies had to invest billions in research to come up with the short distance EV’s they are pawning as commuters but the sales of most save for the Prius (hybrid not zero emission) are lagging.  We live in a world of distance, most do not work very close to home.  Commutes are long and require a vehicle that will run for more than 40 miles.

In doing this the State of California has mandated that people buy zero-emission cars.  You can not argue that.  If the Government requires 15% of vehicles sold in the state be zero-emissions that would mean that 15 percent of car buyers would somehow be forced to buy one.  That should not be hard to figure out.

The Air Board (ARB) say they are doing to help bring down the cost of these vehicles, this is from the report of the ARB.

Can you fathom the depth of control the State of California is trying to exert on the people of the entire country?  The bad news is they are both proud and boastful of it. If you live in California you would have standing in challenging the constitutionality of this regulation.  For the sake of the nation  somebody file a suit and work toward class action to overturn this mandate.  BTW  we all know it would not get past the 9th circuit.

Socialism is here, there is no doubt.

1 Comment

Filed under Environmentalists, Government Agencies

Voter ID Laws

There is a drumbeat in this country to require voters to have photo identification.  For years now both sides of the aisle have balked about voter fraud. In fact the Democrats and Republicans alike cite various voter fraud instances almost every election. Whether or not they are proven is often not reported and in fact the media says it does not exist.

Here is how an editorial titled “The Myth of Voter Fraud” from the NYTimes from October of 2011 begins.

It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote — 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election.

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters. Cutting back on early voting, which has been popular among working people who often cannot afford to take off from their jobs on Election Day, will save money, they claim.

Wow, I don’t think you can get more partisan than that.  The NYTimes jumping in the tank for the Democrats!  But I have Democrat friends and they seem to have photo ID’s.  The State of NJ will give you a photo ID. It costs 6 bucks and they will issue after your 17th birthday.  How about PA? 13.50 will get it done.  What with the 40 Dollars that everyone is getting (what a lie that was) surely we can get our kids photo identification for voting purposes.

Here is  a good explanation of discrimination

In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.

Now unlike our current President I am not a Constitutional Scholar (he says with tongue in cheek).  But a law that equally applies to all residents can hardly rise to the level of discrimination.  Unless it is a perceived one.  In this case the perception seems to be coming from the man whose job it is to enforce the laws of the country.  Attorney General Eric Holder.  If you read this blog regularly you know I don’t think Holder is either a good lawyer or a defender of the laws of the land.  In fact more than once Holder has chosen not to enforce exiting law.  That is not his job.  His job is to defend the law from false accusations.  Now we come to the case of voter ID laws.  Nowhere in any of these laws does it prevent anyone from any particular class from voting.  What it does do is make the act of voting a one time event for everyone.  The requirement to present ID is nothing more than a check to prevent any potential voter fraud.   Remember the NYT  called it a blatant play by the Republicans to disenfranchise the Democrats.  Are all Democrats so poor that they can’t get a photo ID?  I doubt it.  But like I said the argument goes both ways.  Doubt me?  How about Wisconsin?


As Yogi Berra once said it’s déjà vu all over again as for Wisconsin Democrats as they allege that the Waukesha County clerk is once again tampering with votes to hand an election to the Republicans.

Here is the statement of Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate,

The race to determine control of the Wisconsin Senate has fallen in the hands of the Waukesha County clerk, who has already distinguished herself as incompetent, if not worse. She is once more tampering with the results of a consequential election and in the next hours we will determine our next course of action. For now, Wisconsin should know that a dark cloud hangs over these important results.

Nate Silver of 538 projected that in the critical District 8 race the incumbent Darling will finish 1,800 votes ahead of the Democratic challenger Pasch, but the Silver also said that based on his modeling Democrats would be crazy not move forward with a recall of Scott Walker. He found that the race would be a tossup.

Since George W. Bush and his Florida shenanigans in 2000, it has become the norm for one side or another to allege fraud in every close election. This habit is nothing more that the collective psychological damage and distrust that the results of the 2000 election left us with, but in Wisconsin the skepticism is merited.

So who are the people passing these laws protecting, or for that matter harming?   Don’t you think if the photo ID laws were implemented that the potential for fraud from either side is diminished.

Now on to what AG Holder had to say:

As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.”   Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years.   He was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.

I am mystified by the deceptive practices comment.  We have been fighting for years?  Who are we and what practices are they?  Oddly the criteria for the AG having to review is the 1965 Voters rights act and specifically section 5. Holder discusses this in his speech

Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough – and fair.   We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law.   If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change.   And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

As many of you know – and as I hope the law students here are learning – Section 5 was put in place decades ago because of a well-documented history of voter discrimination in all or parts of the 16 states to which it applies.   Within these “covered jurisdictions,” any proposed change in voting procedures or practices – from moving a polling location to enacting a statewide redistricting plan – must be “precleared” – that is, approved – either by the Justice Department, or by a panel of federal judges.

Without question, Sections 5’s preclearance process has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades.   In 2006, it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support – passing the House by a vote of 390 to 33, and the Senate by a vote of 98 to zero – before being signed into law by President Bush.

Let’s be clear here.  What AG Holder and others in this fight on the Democrats side are saying, in my opinion, is that these laws are racially discriminatory.  Period.  They will use section 5 as the club to “level the playing field”  even though these laws are nothing but even.  Covering all the people of the state.  Unlike Section 5 of the federal law which selected specific states for over site.  Wouldn’t that be considered uneven application and therefore discriminatory?  In fact on the DOJ website we find this little tidbit.

Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction — or any political subunit within it — cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.

Voter ID laws do not even come close to this level.  Unless you are an agenda driven Democrat true believer who sees everything  in two colors.  Right Eric?

(Holder lost another voter ID case, this one in Indiana.  The Supreme Court voting 6-3 ruled the law constitutional.  So far 20 states have ID laws. )

1 Comment

Filed under DOJ, Government, Government Agencies

USDA: Little things mean a lot

Yesterday I wrote about the USDA program to aid the Christmas tree growers.  The plan was to put a board in place and collect  15 cents a tree to support the board and run advertisements for the industry.   This is nothing new and it seems that this one aspect of the USDA mission is costing taxpayers money to support many aspects of our economy,  here are a few of the programs.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAAF)
 Producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishery products that are determined by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) administrator to have been adversely affected by imports may apply for technical assistance and cash payments under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers program. Producers establish eligibility for these program benefits by submitting an application at their local Farm Service Agency (FSA) Service Center. The technical assistance is provided in several increments.
Peanut Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
 The Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Act) provides loans for crop years 2008 through 2012 for peanut producers. Producers may apply for marketing assistance loans for farm- or warehouse-stored peanuts or for peanut loan deficiency payments (LDPs). These programs help to stabilize America’s peanut industry and ensure the well being of agriculture in the United States.
 USDA’s Milk Income Loss Contract Program (MILC), administered by the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA), compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a specified level. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized MILC through Sept. 30, 2012. The program has no set funding level.

Fruit, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders  

Federal marketing orders are locally administered by committees made up of growers and/or handlers, and often a member of the public. Marketing order regulations, initiated by industry and enforced by USDA, bind the entire industry in the geographical area regulated if approved by producers and the Secretary of Agriculture.
Marketing orders and agreements (1) maintain the high quality of produce that is on the market; (2) standardize packages and containers; (3) regulate the flow of product to market; (4) establish reserve pools for storable commodities; and (5) authorize production research, marketing research and development, and advertising.

This is only a few of the programs run by the USDA.  Each one cost you and I tax dollars to prop up an industry.   Hate the price of Milk?  Blame the USDA for price supports.  Can’t get veggies?  Maybe because the USDA board said not to grow so much this year.

I have railed against runaway federal agencies for the entire time I have written this blog.  This one has quietly escaped by eye until the Christmas tree debacle.  All of this is just wrong!  It is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

1 Comment

Filed under Government Agencies

Obama Team to America: Not Thee but ME!

The man who holds the office of the President of the United States has not fooled many of us.  But he fooled enough to get elected in 2008.  He talked as if he was for the average person.  He still does.  But he surrounds himself with Wall Street fat cats.  These are the same guys who you think bankrupted the country while Bush was in office.  They now walk the halls of power in Washington directing the President in how to make life for them better.  What makes anyone think Barack cares about a ditch digger?

Everything this man has done since assuming the mantle of the Presidency has gone to show just what an elitist he is. This man golfs while bombs are being dropped at his direction on three different nations.  His team of power brokers was/are a Hodge-podge  of Left wing zealots and some even had Communist ties.  But the area I want to cover today is his Department of Justice.  You know the ones that would not prosecute the Black panthers for election intimidation at a Philadelphia voting site.  But even that is not as amazing as how the DOJ under the Direction of Eric Holder has shown just how elitist and arrogant it is.  Here is the story.

Back in 2007 the Inspector General submitted a report saying that there were no controls in place for expenditures for conferences that the DOJ either sponsored or attended.  The report in 2007 said that the DOJ needs to try to find the most cost-effective the criteria used in conducting a conference.  Location cost, food and Beverage, Audio-Visual and event planners.  This report was based on costs while GWB was President.  Here is a list of the yearly costs

2000 – 34.3

2001 – 33.8

2002 – 47.0

2003 – 52.7

2004 – 58.0

2005 – 40.2

2006 – 45.9
Now the report called for more scrutiny in spending.  So you would figure that the man who wants to take care of the middle class would hold his Attorney General accountable for these expenditures.  Lets look at the list of expenses from 2007 until now

2007 – No report

2008 – 47.8

2009 – 73.3

73.3 MILLION dollars in one year for coffee and donuts at conferences held by Eric Holders employees.   I need to go to work for this guy.  If this were a company that was accountable to tax payers I guarantee that every penny would be scrutinized.  But when Obama and his buddies are playing with Monopoly money what do they care!

Folks ,I am sure if we listen carefully we will hear more examples of the Elitist and divisive nature of Barack Obama and his team of progressives (being nice they are Socialists in sheep’s clothing).  Don’t be fooled by the speeches.  Read the bills and their content.  Each one takes more power from the real authority in the country.  The people and the States.  Stop this man in 2012.  Your lifestyle good or bad depends on it.  We already know that  he will take care of his rich buddies.  Look at Wall Street and Warren Buffett.  Why would Buffett outright lie for Obama?  Would a  man like Warren Buffett really work to help the middle class?  Warren helps Warren get richer.  You can put him in the same group with Soros in my book.

As for Holder?  He is a bad lawyer placed in a position of power and he will use it to advance whatever agenda his boss tells him too.  He likes his job and the power that comes with it.  Without it he is a little man with no credentials.


Filed under DOJ, Government Agencies