DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING ?

The Nine Most Terrifying Words

Please take a minute to read the message below. Does this concern you? Do you think it's just politics as usual and nothing to worry about? Will you take a few minutes and contact the EPA? If we don't take a stand now, who will? This may be our only chance to end this...

"IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED"

Two days before the 4th of July, as Americans celebrated their independence, the EPA took the unprecedented step of overriding several states' constitutions, and individual property rights by granting itself the authority to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order."

If not overturned by public outcry, this regulation becomes the law of the land, without further notice on September 2, 2014. Americans have until August 1, 2014 to respond to the EPA to have the rule withdrawn:

Email: jones.anita@epa.gov
Fax: (202) 565-2585
Mail: OCFO-2014-0001; FRL-9910-14-OCFO FPPS c/o Anita Jones, OCFO/OFM/FPPS, Mailcode 2733R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460
Go to regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA_FRDOC_ 0001-15898

What this means: The EPA and other Federal agencies often levy fines for non-compliance with regulations. These fines may be are overturned or ruled unfair as in the case of Chantell and Michael Sackett of CO. The EPA fined them $75,000 per day for failing to fill in a wetland, even though engineers claimed there was no wetland on their property. After four years of fighting, that case was partially overturned in the Supreme Court. Under these new regulations, the EPA can simply garnish their wages leaving the couple bankrupt within months. In short, it would be impossible to fight the agency regardless of how invasive their regulations.

If allowed to stand, the EPA can deem you in violation of a rule they create, then garnish your wages for failure to comply, all without court approval.

The EPA claims that it does not consider this a controversial rule and it is not considered "a significant regulatory action." It therefore is not "subject to review" for whether or not: