Trump posts first order of business – kill the Climate Action Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule

Dear Joel,
Now THAT is music to my ears. Whooopee !
Regards,
WL

The White House web site has basically been completely revamped. I’m not sure that calling out “Climate Change” as the only change does it merit.

The waterway issue is perhaps not as pervasive as Climate Change but need to be fixed. The federal government has taken control of ponds and puddles on private land all over the U.S. There is hope that private ownership will once again be respected and the only government rules remaining are local and deal with issues of impact on the properties of others.

The EPA’s attempt to control all waters in America is not about the water. It’s about the control of the land that water — including rain water — touches. Specifically, it’s about wresting control of private property away from private property owners, and placing that control with the government.
Communists/Marxists/Socialists know the importance of controlling property and the individuals on it, and what private (right to own) property does to their failed, centralized, attempt at governing. That’s why fist-fights between hardline communists and right-to-own Russian property advocates broke out when this subject came up in Russia’s Duma during the lead-up to, and following, the so-called fall of communism.
An excellent summary of this fight over the right to own private property in Russia is a 2001 article by Leon Aron, “Land Privatization”
https://www.aei.org/publication/land-privatization/
Ironically, what Russian right-to-own advocates were fighting for, an Obama Executive Order gave to the EPA to regulate.
THE FIST EPA ATTEMPT TO TAKE CONTROL OF AMERICA’S LAND AND WATER
The first time the EPA tried to grab control of America’s waters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision against them when they attempted to cite the Migratory Bird Rule as authority for stopping a consortium of Chicago municipalities from using an abandoned sand and gravel pit for a solid waste disposal site; invoking the Commerce Clause—the only power given Congress by the founders with which to overrule state law.
EPA lawyers argued that migratory birds were “interstate commerce” generating revenue ” . . . of very nearly the first magnitude . . . that millions of people spent over a billion dollars annually on recreational pursuits relating to migratory birds, and that the ducks needed the water that had seeped into the gravel pits . . .”
This maneuver is called the Commerce Clause gambit that the EPA attempts to use when trying to override state sovereignty and law.
The Supreme Court didn’t buy it, saying: “…we find nothing approaching a clear statement from Congress it intended the (sic: Clean Water Act) to reach an abandoned sand and gravel pit…to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mud flats falling within the “Migratory Bird Rule” would result in significant impingement of the state’s traditional and primary power over land and water use.
”
THE SECOND EPA ATTEMPT BY TO TAKE CONTROL OF AMERICA’S LAND AND WATER
Next they tried skirting the “navigational” water definition in Rapanos v United States .
John A. Rapanos back-filled a portion of his 54 acres in Michigan prior to development. The nearest body of navigable water was some 20 miles away. The EPA informed Mr. Rapanos that his “. . . saturated fields were waters of the United States that could not be filled without a permit.”
Again, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the EPA had no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate:
 >Truly isolated, non-navigable, intrastate water bodies,
 >Any area merely because it has a hydrological connection with downstream navigable-in-fact waters,
 >Remote drains and ditches with insubstantial flows, and
 >That federal jurisdiction under the Scalia majority (5-4 plurality ) ruling in the case was that the Clean Water Act ends at “. . .those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water … that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, lakes’” and their wetlands. . .”; waters covered under the Clean Water Act’s definition of navigable waters.
THE THIRD EPA ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA’S LAND AND WATER
Failing in Congress and in the Courts, the EPA and the president, seeing their proposals had no legality, turned to the presidential Executive Order.
Obama’s EO granted the EPA this unlawful and unconstitutional power that’s designed to further erode private property rights—an attempt right out of a rogue king’s, war lord’s, dictator’s, despot’s or Bolshevik’s playbook.
Whatever we say, goes.
This is why the founders wrote our Constitution. It’s not a “living document” as The City and their controlled propaganda outlets (MSM) blare at the public; to be shredded every few years by gluttonous bankers bent on controlling earth’s resources and people for their profit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGhl7ysL_1U&feature=youtu.be
No, it was written to keep government and its gofers out of America’s living rooms, back yards, and off our lands. The banker’s end game is to nullify the Constitution using bureaucratic agencies like the EPA to seize private property and other rights with agency “rules and regulations”—all of which are illegal under the Constitution.
Absent the right to own property and rule of law, you’re left with an “ism”—fascism, socialism, communism—and a central control system for everything, including land and water, that benefits only a handful of psychopathic financial criminals at the top.
How is it the EPA and Obama could ignore constitutionally established Congressional and Supreme Court law?
They attempted to use administrative “law” to skirt the Constitution.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/
This fight may have just entered its final rounds a/o January 20th.

Remember he actually threatened the then President-elect with something or other dire if he touched GISS.

I’ll second that!

Thanks Anthony and the folks at WUWT for all you do.