[Previous entry: "Frist’s War on Infidels"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Frist’s War on Fiscal Infidels"]

04/18/2005: "Frist’s War in Environmental Infidels"

One of the reasons that Liberal Atheists (LAs) seek to block the re-nominations of previously rejected Bush judicial candidates is that these candidates have bravely spoken out against the sin of environmentalism. Taking leadership in this crusade against godless environmental regulation are those nominees who, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, belong to the “Constitution in Exile” movement. It seeks a return to the heady days of the 1930s before New Deal destroyed the dream that any Horatio Alger, regardless of his particular Ivy League university, could aspire to be a robber baron. These nominees recognize that government regulation is not only unconstitutional but anti-Christian, and they know it is their religious rather than political convictions that inappropriately disqualify them in the eyes of the LAs. Environmental regulation is unconstitutional because it can reduce the economic value of a man’s property. It’s also unholy. Every True Believer (as opposed to self-deluded Liberals who call themselves Christians) understands the emphasis the Bible places on the sanctity of one’s valuables. Doesn’t the Bible talk about how “thieves can break in and steal,” implying that one’s earthly treasures need to be carefully safeguarded? How can a regulation that reduces the economic value of a “treasure” not be sinful? For example, let’s say a man chooses to make a contract offering his property as a repository for the solid, liquid, or gaseous by-products of industrial production. How can a property owner in the complete meaning of that title not have full use of his land, the water running through it, and the air above? The nominees correctly hold that so-called environmental regulations unconstitutionally interfere with his freedom to make whatever contract concerning his property that he chooses. His neighbors always have the option of making him a better offer, so why does the government need to get involved? Isn’t paying for something to go away the American Way? A number of scriptural passages support this position. The clearest example is the turning of water into wine at the Cana wedding feast. Were that to happen today the LAs would immediately go to the EPA, the FDA, and the BATF to their activist judges to slap on an injunction for an unlicensed manufacturing process creating an alcoholic beverage in an untested way for which Federal revenues were not properly collected! There is a clear lesson for the entire chemical industry here - if one without sin can effect a chemical transformation without licensing, oversight, or taxation, how can it be improper for anyone else to do so?