Oh, great.
NASCAR has been hijacked by the EPA. The fans aren't happy (nor should we be), as the comments in this link show. One does wonder, given the well-known intimidation tactics of this corrupt, Progressive/Marxist administration, what NASCAR was threatened with. I find it difficult to believe that Bill France Jr. did this on his own.
In all fairness, we should've known this was coming when American Ethanol was introduced into the fuel. As you know, ethanol is made primarily from corn, which is food. This drives up the cost of everything that uses corn and depletes our food supply for absolutely no reason other than to satisfy the radical, far-left, mankind-hating eliminationists who psychotically think that we're a pox on the planet. It just so happens that these idiots are in charge of our energy policy. Not to mention that the ethanol makes gasoline less efficient and destroys various components of your older vehicle's fuel system.
It also plays into the man-made global warming hoax.
It's just sad that a racing organization can be corrupted by this administration.
Is nothing sacred?
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Another One Bites the Dust – Electric Car Maker Folds, Costing Salinas, CA $500K
Here’s a story that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.
From KSBW.com,
Here we have another story about a heavily subsidized company that promised grand and glorious things, only to fail in spectacular fashion at a great cost to innocent taxpayers. It’s far from the first and it certainly won’t be the last if we don’t come to our senses soon. One is left to wonder just how many more of these stories we’ll see before we finally realize the truth about President Obama’s dream of a “green economy.”
It. Will. Not. Work.
There are so many things wrong with the whole idea of a “green economy” that’s it’s difficult to know just where to begin. I suppose I could start with the idea behind the environmental movement itself.
Yes, for a while we did have an environmental problem. Rivers were on fire from the waste that was being emptied into them, the smog in some cities was chokingly bad and there were all sorts of nasty things in your drinking water that you really didn’t want to know about. So, from a sense of cleanliness if nothing else, the environmental movement was born.
Success came early to groups like the Sierra Club and others. They were able to have legislation introduced that forced companies to become more aware of their impact on the environment. The public was firmly behind their efforts, as no thinking person would be able to think for long if they were being slowly poisoned by modern life.
However, I can find nothing wrong with the idea behind the birth of the movement. What I am able to find great fault with is what is has devolved into, namely a large and way-too-powerful government agency that is now a destroyer of jobs, capital, and potential instead of a responsible steward, as the movement was in its infancy. The Environmental Protection Agency and the various private groups with whom it deals has become a haven for the Anti-Human League.
As fantastical as it sounds, there are actually some folk who think that mankind is a pox on the planet, just like Agent Smith in The Matrix,
And they live to control you: what you eat, what you drive, what kind of light bulbs you can use, even how you think.
The modern environmental movement has all the hallmarks of a religion, except backwards. In fact, you could look upon environmentalism as devil worship. You wouldn’t be far off the mark. The Earth is it’s god. It even has a name, Gaia. To many, it’s a deity to be worshipped and, on occasion, to be offered sacrifice. Instead of elevating mankind, environmentalism seeks to degrade it. Its adherents are constantly finding fault with even the slightest thing you do as you go about your daily life.
You use too much water to take a shower. When you use the bathroom, you use too much toilet paper. You wash your clothes with the wrong detergent. You drive the wrong car to work. In fact, you shouldn’t even drive at all, use public transit instead. Your job is killing the planet. Your television and computer consume too much electricity. You eat the wrong food. The earth is in peril because of you and needs to be saved, and environmentalists are the only ones who care enough to do it, you filthy human.
So pervasive is modern environmentalism that you can barely watch TV, go to a movie or turn on the radio without hearing the message. Think “Big Yellow Taxi.”
While being aware of how the world works isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it was carried to the absurd extreme long ago. Today, it’s just bitchiness and control. Enviro-nagging, if you will. And you must admit, it's the perfect bitch. Who could possibly want dirty air and water?
And it needs to stop.
I’m not suggesting that I don’t want clean air and water. But with our air and water cleaner today than ever before, I think the job is done. However, to those who populate the green movement, nothing is ever enough. New and more stringent regulations are issued daily from the EPA that are threatening our ability to produce energy in a cost effective way. These new regulations are currently fulfilling President Obama’s dream of shutting down the coal-powered electricity industry.
Now, common sense would dictate that the movement would embrace cleaner technology like hydroelectric dams and nuclear power. But even those technologies are frowned upon. We haven’t built a new nuclear plant in the US in over thirty years, and efforts are underway to reroute rivers away from their controlled route (and coincidentally, away from power producing dams) and back to their more “natural” state. This is a primary component in the recent flooding in the Midwest.
Common sense would also dictate that certain realities be recognized. However, neither common sense nor the laws of physics enter into the mind of the environmentalist. And forget about economic laws. To them, money is evil, too.
Look at what the movement has done to our gasoline. In the name of “saving the planet,” we’re now forced to use a mixture of gas and ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn, a food. Ethanol is also far less efficient than pure gasoline, resulting in poorer mileage and the deterioration of components in your car, causing your fuel system to wear out ahead of its time. Does that sound like an environmentally smart thing to do?
Now, much of the corn that was used for food for our livestock and us now goes to make fuel, resulting in higher prices for consumers and food shortages. Again, does that make any sense?
You can see where this is going, and it’s no place good. And this is only one example. Add to this the very false argument that we’re addicted to oil and you can see environmentalism laid bare in all its contradiction and self-loathing.
I’ve mentioned before that oil is the common sense substance to use. It contains the most potential energy of any naturally occurring resource. It’s portable and can be made into a wide variety of useful products, one of which greased your bottom as an infant.
But to the average environmentalist, it’s the source of all of our problems and must be eliminated entirely.
But I’m digressing all over my own post. Sorry.
The simple truth remains concerning a “green economy”: if it made sense to do so, we’d already be doing it. We already use energy-dense methods of production, but they are under attack from a group of people who don’t understand the laws of physics or economics.
The Salinas story is yet another failure in an industry that is the very definition of unsustainable. In order to survive, it must depend on taxpayer dollars. It cannot create wealth, if it did, it wouldn’t need subsidies.
The technology upon which a green economy depends has yet to mature. It makes no sense to waste tax dollars on windmills when a nuclear plant is much more efficient. It makes no sense to “invest” in solar power when a hydroelectric dam is nearby that produces electricity constantly. All of the so-called "solutions" forwarded by the green movement are far less efficient than what we’re currently using. And they all require a backup source of power.
Which is why it is designed to fail.
But, after a few generations are born into the culture of falsehood that is the environmental movement, the more people will cease to question it. For them, it will have always been that way. The lie of man-caused climate change will become the truth for too many.
Is that really the way we want to go? Or will we start to teach our children and grandchildren the truth about the movement that seeks to enslave them with their own guilt?
From KSBW.com,
A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.Van Jones hardest hit.
The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.
All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.
Here we have another story about a heavily subsidized company that promised grand and glorious things, only to fail in spectacular fashion at a great cost to innocent taxpayers. It’s far from the first and it certainly won’t be the last if we don’t come to our senses soon. One is left to wonder just how many more of these stories we’ll see before we finally realize the truth about President Obama’s dream of a “green economy.”
It. Will. Not. Work.
There are so many things wrong with the whole idea of a “green economy” that’s it’s difficult to know just where to begin. I suppose I could start with the idea behind the environmental movement itself.
Yes, for a while we did have an environmental problem. Rivers were on fire from the waste that was being emptied into them, the smog in some cities was chokingly bad and there were all sorts of nasty things in your drinking water that you really didn’t want to know about. So, from a sense of cleanliness if nothing else, the environmental movement was born.
Success came early to groups like the Sierra Club and others. They were able to have legislation introduced that forced companies to become more aware of their impact on the environment. The public was firmly behind their efforts, as no thinking person would be able to think for long if they were being slowly poisoned by modern life.
However, I can find nothing wrong with the idea behind the birth of the movement. What I am able to find great fault with is what is has devolved into, namely a large and way-too-powerful government agency that is now a destroyer of jobs, capital, and potential instead of a responsible steward, as the movement was in its infancy. The Environmental Protection Agency and the various private groups with whom it deals has become a haven for the Anti-Human League.
As fantastical as it sounds, there are actually some folk who think that mankind is a pox on the planet, just like Agent Smith in The Matrix,
And they live to control you: what you eat, what you drive, what kind of light bulbs you can use, even how you think.
The modern environmental movement has all the hallmarks of a religion, except backwards. In fact, you could look upon environmentalism as devil worship. You wouldn’t be far off the mark. The Earth is it’s god. It even has a name, Gaia. To many, it’s a deity to be worshipped and, on occasion, to be offered sacrifice. Instead of elevating mankind, environmentalism seeks to degrade it. Its adherents are constantly finding fault with even the slightest thing you do as you go about your daily life.
You use too much water to take a shower. When you use the bathroom, you use too much toilet paper. You wash your clothes with the wrong detergent. You drive the wrong car to work. In fact, you shouldn’t even drive at all, use public transit instead. Your job is killing the planet. Your television and computer consume too much electricity. You eat the wrong food. The earth is in peril because of you and needs to be saved, and environmentalists are the only ones who care enough to do it, you filthy human.
So pervasive is modern environmentalism that you can barely watch TV, go to a movie or turn on the radio without hearing the message. Think “Big Yellow Taxi.”
While being aware of how the world works isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it was carried to the absurd extreme long ago. Today, it’s just bitchiness and control. Enviro-nagging, if you will. And you must admit, it's the perfect bitch. Who could possibly want dirty air and water?
And it needs to stop.
I’m not suggesting that I don’t want clean air and water. But with our air and water cleaner today than ever before, I think the job is done. However, to those who populate the green movement, nothing is ever enough. New and more stringent regulations are issued daily from the EPA that are threatening our ability to produce energy in a cost effective way. These new regulations are currently fulfilling President Obama’s dream of shutting down the coal-powered electricity industry.
Now, common sense would dictate that the movement would embrace cleaner technology like hydroelectric dams and nuclear power. But even those technologies are frowned upon. We haven’t built a new nuclear plant in the US in over thirty years, and efforts are underway to reroute rivers away from their controlled route (and coincidentally, away from power producing dams) and back to their more “natural” state. This is a primary component in the recent flooding in the Midwest.
Common sense would also dictate that certain realities be recognized. However, neither common sense nor the laws of physics enter into the mind of the environmentalist. And forget about economic laws. To them, money is evil, too.
Look at what the movement has done to our gasoline. In the name of “saving the planet,” we’re now forced to use a mixture of gas and ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn, a food. Ethanol is also far less efficient than pure gasoline, resulting in poorer mileage and the deterioration of components in your car, causing your fuel system to wear out ahead of its time. Does that sound like an environmentally smart thing to do?
Now, much of the corn that was used for food for our livestock and us now goes to make fuel, resulting in higher prices for consumers and food shortages. Again, does that make any sense?
You can see where this is going, and it’s no place good. And this is only one example. Add to this the very false argument that we’re addicted to oil and you can see environmentalism laid bare in all its contradiction and self-loathing.
I’ve mentioned before that oil is the common sense substance to use. It contains the most potential energy of any naturally occurring resource. It’s portable and can be made into a wide variety of useful products, one of which greased your bottom as an infant.
But to the average environmentalist, it’s the source of all of our problems and must be eliminated entirely.
But I’m digressing all over my own post. Sorry.
The simple truth remains concerning a “green economy”: if it made sense to do so, we’d already be doing it. We already use energy-dense methods of production, but they are under attack from a group of people who don’t understand the laws of physics or economics.
The Salinas story is yet another failure in an industry that is the very definition of unsustainable. In order to survive, it must depend on taxpayer dollars. It cannot create wealth, if it did, it wouldn’t need subsidies.
The technology upon which a green economy depends has yet to mature. It makes no sense to waste tax dollars on windmills when a nuclear plant is much more efficient. It makes no sense to “invest” in solar power when a hydroelectric dam is nearby that produces electricity constantly. All of the so-called "solutions" forwarded by the green movement are far less efficient than what we’re currently using. And they all require a backup source of power.
Which is why it is designed to fail.
But, after a few generations are born into the culture of falsehood that is the environmental movement, the more people will cease to question it. For them, it will have always been that way. The lie of man-caused climate change will become the truth for too many.
Is that really the way we want to go? Or will we start to teach our children and grandchildren the truth about the movement that seeks to enslave them with their own guilt?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Why Are the Corps of Engineers Intentionally Allowing the Midwest Floods?
This is one of those days when I’m just full of questions.
Take the flooding in the Midwest along the Missouri river. I ran across this item over at Ace of Spades HQ this weekend entitled Corps of Engineers Mobilize to Protect Random Critters and Bogs: American Men, Women and Children Hardest Hit. All snark aside, it got me wondering about a few things.
Like, is the Missouri river system of dams being intentionally mismanaged so as to cause the flooding of millions of acres by radical environmental policies that put animals above the needs of people?
It would appear so, especially after reading this link from Ace’s post (actually, it’s Dave in Texas’ post) The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland from the American Thinker blog.
Granted, I never thought about it until then. I mean, I knew that radical, far-left, anti-human environmentalists have found a home in our government, but I hadn’t considered that their infiltration would be so serious as to willfully cause the death of Americans and the destruction of so much land.
Although I did know it had been done before. In California’s Central Valley, what was once rich farmland has been turned into a dustbowl after our very own EPA shut off the water supply they say threatens some useless fish. And when I say useless, I mean we can’t eat them. And I’m still wondering why the good people of California are putting up with this blatant violation of our Constitution. After all, our government is supposed to promote the general welfare of the populace, and this action certainly doesn’t qualify.
In fact, I’m frankly surprised that the California governor hasn’t sent in Guard troops to turn the irrigation pumps back on. If I were Gerry Brown, or even Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would have already done so, and dared anyone in Washington to do anything about it. I would have stood up for the people I was elected to represent and would’ve fought any effort by the federal government to prohibit our basic right to feed ourselves.
But that’s just me.
I also wonder why this issue hasn’t been brought before the Supreme Court. I can’t think of a more egregious violation of our constitution than this, but I think the Missouri basin flooding may even be worse.
Another question is, and I’m really getting tired of asking this one, is noted America-hater George Soros involved in this?
Well, what do you know? It seems he is. This post from Radio Patriot entitled Who's Buying Up Flood Ravaged Farmland cites none other than cattle trader Ann Barnhardt. If her name sounds familiar, it’s because I posted the videos of her burning a koran several weeks ago. She’s somewhat of a firebrand.
I have more questions: Why isn’t Darryl Issa investigating this?
And more importantly, why are we allowing our government to do this to us?
Take the flooding in the Midwest along the Missouri river. I ran across this item over at Ace of Spades HQ this weekend entitled Corps of Engineers Mobilize to Protect Random Critters and Bogs: American Men, Women and Children Hardest Hit. All snark aside, it got me wondering about a few things.
Like, is the Missouri river system of dams being intentionally mismanaged so as to cause the flooding of millions of acres by radical environmental policies that put animals above the needs of people?
It would appear so, especially after reading this link from Ace’s post (actually, it’s Dave in Texas’ post) The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland from the American Thinker blog.
Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.
The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach. It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development. In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom. By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.
But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.
Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.
Granted, I never thought about it until then. I mean, I knew that radical, far-left, anti-human environmentalists have found a home in our government, but I hadn’t considered that their infiltration would be so serious as to willfully cause the death of Americans and the destruction of so much land.
Although I did know it had been done before. In California’s Central Valley, what was once rich farmland has been turned into a dustbowl after our very own EPA shut off the water supply they say threatens some useless fish. And when I say useless, I mean we can’t eat them. And I’m still wondering why the good people of California are putting up with this blatant violation of our Constitution. After all, our government is supposed to promote the general welfare of the populace, and this action certainly doesn’t qualify.
In fact, I’m frankly surprised that the California governor hasn’t sent in Guard troops to turn the irrigation pumps back on. If I were Gerry Brown, or even Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would have already done so, and dared anyone in Washington to do anything about it. I would have stood up for the people I was elected to represent and would’ve fought any effort by the federal government to prohibit our basic right to feed ourselves.
But that’s just me.
I also wonder why this issue hasn’t been brought before the Supreme Court. I can’t think of a more egregious violation of our constitution than this, but I think the Missouri basin flooding may even be worse.
Another question is, and I’m really getting tired of asking this one, is noted America-hater George Soros involved in this?
Well, what do you know? It seems he is. This post from Radio Patriot entitled Who's Buying Up Flood Ravaged Farmland cites none other than cattle trader Ann Barnhardt. If her name sounds familiar, it’s because I posted the videos of her burning a koran several weeks ago. She’s somewhat of a firebrand.
1. File this one under “Now It All Makes Sense”. A Missouri farming and ranching contact just got off a conference call wherein he was informed that the federal government is sending out letters to all of the flooded out farmers in the Missouri River flood plain and bottoms notifying them that the Army Corps of Engineers will offer to BUY THEIR LAND.If any of you gentle readers know anyone in the Midwest that has been affected by this apparently intentional flooding, you should inform them of these links.
Intentionally flood massive acreage of highly productive farmground. Destroy people’s communities and homes. Catch them while they are desperate and afraid and then swoop in and buy the ground cheap. Those evil sons of bitches.
2. Speaking of evil sons of bitches, George Soros appears to be “investing” in farmground through the same puppet company that he used to get into the grain elevator and fertilizer business. The company is called Ospraie Capital Management and is buying up farmground in a joint venture with Teays River Investments as a partner.
I have more questions: Why isn’t Darryl Issa investigating this?
And more importantly, why are we allowing our government to do this to us?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Obama Promises Regulatory Review Just as EPA Shuts Down Mine
In the wake of last November’s shellacking, President Obama has promised a government-wide review of the regulations that are strangling the nations’ economic growth. After two years of unprecedented intrusion by Washington into the private sector, Obama would have us believe that he's had a change of heart and now wants what we conservatives have wanted for years, a realistic reassessment of the negative effects of government regulations upon American businesses.
This is bullshit.
I know it, you know it, and everyone who is currently out of a job knows it. What’s worse is, Obama himself knows it. He has no interest in reviving the private sector. In fact, he is anti-business, as we’ve heard in his speeches. His open hostility toward the private sector and anyone in it is unique in modern times. He has consistently and uniformly criticized the creation of wealth and it’s benefits. He is playing the counterculture drumbeat that began in the ‘60’s.
Obama clearly has no understanding of how our free-market economy works. He has never run a business, in fact, his role as a community organizer was expressly designed to damage businesses. Only 19% of his advisors have any experience in the private sector.
Even his childhood primed him to be hostile to business in any form. His mother was a political radical, as was his mentor, the communist Frank Marshall Davis. All radicals hate business in any form. It’s what makes them part of the counterculture in the first place. They uniformly believe that wealth is evil.
It’s a perversion of the Bible verse, “Love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice it doesn’t say that money itself is the root of evil, the love of it is. What those “revolutionaries” lack is perspective, among other things. In their misguide quest to perfect humanity, they think that if money was eliminated, all of the ills of society would be cured forever. Ask yourself if their previous efforts to solve this problem have produced anything other than untold death and destruction to the society that they claimed to “help.”
But, I digress.
I’m sure you remember the famous conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber during the campaign. Obama said, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The absurdity of his comment is evident in the fact that everyone who works receives a paycheck. These “evil corporations” that leftists regard as the devil incarnate do, in fact, spread the wealth around in the form of paychecks and stock. They also pay taxes. Remember that the next time you hear a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank castigate business. This is another manifestation of what I call "progressive political psychosis" where a radical leftist politician demonizes an American institution that it depends on for its' very existence.
While progressive politicians love to point their bony fingers at business, we are somehow supposed to overlook their greed. “Corporate greed” has been supplanted with “government greed.” What is the one characteristic of liberal, “proud progressive” politicians that differentiates them from conservatives? Like knights on a modern-day Crusade, it is their holy quest to raise taxes, taking as much money as possible from business and consumers.
Who are the truly greedy ones again?
The timing of Obama’s claim just happens to coincide with the EPA’s cancellation of a four-year-old mining permit in West Virginia, shutting down a working coalmine, forcing hundreds of Americans out of work and reducing our supply of energy, in keeping with his campaign pledge to make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket.” The mining company had dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” according to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, when the EPA suddenly decided that the company must halt operations.
If President Obama were at all serious about reducing federal regulations, he would start with this incident. He has an opportunity to prove his intentions to the country by making sure that this mine is reopened as soon as possible.
Will his actions match his words? We shall see.
I’m not holding my breath while I wait.
This is bullshit.
I know it, you know it, and everyone who is currently out of a job knows it. What’s worse is, Obama himself knows it. He has no interest in reviving the private sector. In fact, he is anti-business, as we’ve heard in his speeches. His open hostility toward the private sector and anyone in it is unique in modern times. He has consistently and uniformly criticized the creation of wealth and it’s benefits. He is playing the counterculture drumbeat that began in the ‘60’s.
Obama clearly has no understanding of how our free-market economy works. He has never run a business, in fact, his role as a community organizer was expressly designed to damage businesses. Only 19% of his advisors have any experience in the private sector.
Even his childhood primed him to be hostile to business in any form. His mother was a political radical, as was his mentor, the communist Frank Marshall Davis. All radicals hate business in any form. It’s what makes them part of the counterculture in the first place. They uniformly believe that wealth is evil.
It’s a perversion of the Bible verse, “Love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice it doesn’t say that money itself is the root of evil, the love of it is. What those “revolutionaries” lack is perspective, among other things. In their misguide quest to perfect humanity, they think that if money was eliminated, all of the ills of society would be cured forever. Ask yourself if their previous efforts to solve this problem have produced anything other than untold death and destruction to the society that they claimed to “help.”
But, I digress.
I’m sure you remember the famous conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber during the campaign. Obama said, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The absurdity of his comment is evident in the fact that everyone who works receives a paycheck. These “evil corporations” that leftists regard as the devil incarnate do, in fact, spread the wealth around in the form of paychecks and stock. They also pay taxes. Remember that the next time you hear a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank castigate business. This is another manifestation of what I call "progressive political psychosis" where a radical leftist politician demonizes an American institution that it depends on for its' very existence.
While progressive politicians love to point their bony fingers at business, we are somehow supposed to overlook their greed. “Corporate greed” has been supplanted with “government greed.” What is the one characteristic of liberal, “proud progressive” politicians that differentiates them from conservatives? Like knights on a modern-day Crusade, it is their holy quest to raise taxes, taking as much money as possible from business and consumers.
Who are the truly greedy ones again?
The timing of Obama’s claim just happens to coincide with the EPA’s cancellation of a four-year-old mining permit in West Virginia, shutting down a working coalmine, forcing hundreds of Americans out of work and reducing our supply of energy, in keeping with his campaign pledge to make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket.” The mining company had dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” according to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, when the EPA suddenly decided that the company must halt operations.
If President Obama were at all serious about reducing federal regulations, he would start with this incident. He has an opportunity to prove his intentions to the country by making sure that this mine is reopened as soon as possible.
Will his actions match his words? We shall see.
I’m not holding my breath while I wait.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Here's Real Progress - Rep. Lewis Pledges to Strip EPA Funds
This is what we voted for.
You may have noticed a trend in recent years. Unelected bureaucrats have steadily increased their power far beyond the original intent of their positions until we have entire departments of our government pursuing a radical agenda that directly opposes the best interests of the nation.
I speak specifically of the Environmental Protection Agency. The same agency that is currently responsible for the needless agricultural shutdown of the former cornucopia of California's Central Valley because of an insignificant bait fish. This action, along with many others that defy common sense, are responsible for the inability to utilize our God-given resources to benefit the country and its people.
Our own government is working against us. How has this happened?
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame. We haven't done our duty in informing ourselves about the goings-on in Washington, busy as we are working and raising our families. We trusted unscrupulous politicians to act in our stead, politicians who said one thing on the campaign trail and then did something completely different when they were elected to office. It only took us two generations before we caught on to the deception, but when we did, we managed to begin the process of removing said lying pols, most noticeably in this most recent election.
Now the work begins for those we elected. We sent an unmistakable message to the "progressives" in Washington that their vision for the country of an ever-increasing federal intrusion into our lives was about to stop.
Case in point: California Representative Jerry Lewis has vowed to strip funding for the EPA. Granted, he's grandstanding just a bit in a bid to chair the House Appropriations Committee. But it appears that his heart is in the right place and that he heard the peoples' message to Washington loudly and clearly on November 2. Specifically, he's looking to stop the agency from circumventing Congress, and us, by imposing many of the provisions of the failed Cap-and-Trade energy tax. The EPA has indicated that it intends to start regulating greenhouse gases in January, thus bypassing Congress and the will of the people who are starting to fully recognize the harm this agency is doing to our national interests.
This is good news. We're starting to get our own government back under control. We should expect no less than a responsive government that's able to handle the problems of modern life in a mature and knowledgeable way while still advancing the national interests, in this case the need for cheap energy.
There are far too many radical environmentalists (many in high places) who mistakenly think that we must roll back our dependence on so-called "fossil fuels" because of an erroneous theory that has yet to be proven. These people want us to pursue some fantastical new "green technology" that is supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the name of the now-discredited "man-made global warming" theory.
Notice how these ecological fanatics ignore the one proven technology that could provide us with inexpensive energy with very little pollution - nuclear power. There is a reason that we haven't built a new nuclear plant in over thirty years and it's the radical environmentalists (and their lawyer enablers) who have constructed the legal and regulatory roadblocks. All made possible by a couple of badly written and horribly executed federal laws.
This entire environmental charade is based on a lie. And we know it.
We should be thankful that the ClimateGate emails were finally brought to light, curiously, no thanks to WikiLeaks. As an aside, if Julian Assange were so interested in bringing truth to the masses and uncovering corruption, why wasn't he instrumental in making those emails public? Huh, Julian? Where were you when you could have done the planet a real favor by uncovering a massive hoax, one that has cost us untold trillions of dollars for no reason other than a crisis manufactured for political purposes?
I'm digressing again. Sorry.
Representative Lewis is to be applauded for his intention to defund the EPA. This should be merely the beginning of the dismantling of Washington bureaus who are standing in the way of America's greatness by prohibiting the utilization of our natural resources. Granted, we should be judicious in our use of these resources and not return to the excesses that created the need for an EPA in the first place. No one wants to see rivers on fire again. But we've learned a lot and corrected our mistakes, something that radical environmentalists refuse to acknowledge.
We can and should be harvesting the things Given to us in a responsible way.
Kudos to Representative Lewis. Don't stop now.
You may have noticed a trend in recent years. Unelected bureaucrats have steadily increased their power far beyond the original intent of their positions until we have entire departments of our government pursuing a radical agenda that directly opposes the best interests of the nation.
I speak specifically of the Environmental Protection Agency. The same agency that is currently responsible for the needless agricultural shutdown of the former cornucopia of California's Central Valley because of an insignificant bait fish. This action, along with many others that defy common sense, are responsible for the inability to utilize our God-given resources to benefit the country and its people.
Our own government is working against us. How has this happened?
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame. We haven't done our duty in informing ourselves about the goings-on in Washington, busy as we are working and raising our families. We trusted unscrupulous politicians to act in our stead, politicians who said one thing on the campaign trail and then did something completely different when they were elected to office. It only took us two generations before we caught on to the deception, but when we did, we managed to begin the process of removing said lying pols, most noticeably in this most recent election.
Now the work begins for those we elected. We sent an unmistakable message to the "progressives" in Washington that their vision for the country of an ever-increasing federal intrusion into our lives was about to stop.
Case in point: California Representative Jerry Lewis has vowed to strip funding for the EPA. Granted, he's grandstanding just a bit in a bid to chair the House Appropriations Committee. But it appears that his heart is in the right place and that he heard the peoples' message to Washington loudly and clearly on November 2. Specifically, he's looking to stop the agency from circumventing Congress, and us, by imposing many of the provisions of the failed Cap-and-Trade energy tax. The EPA has indicated that it intends to start regulating greenhouse gases in January, thus bypassing Congress and the will of the people who are starting to fully recognize the harm this agency is doing to our national interests.
This is good news. We're starting to get our own government back under control. We should expect no less than a responsive government that's able to handle the problems of modern life in a mature and knowledgeable way while still advancing the national interests, in this case the need for cheap energy.
There are far too many radical environmentalists (many in high places) who mistakenly think that we must roll back our dependence on so-called "fossil fuels" because of an erroneous theory that has yet to be proven. These people want us to pursue some fantastical new "green technology" that is supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the name of the now-discredited "man-made global warming" theory.
Notice how these ecological fanatics ignore the one proven technology that could provide us with inexpensive energy with very little pollution - nuclear power. There is a reason that we haven't built a new nuclear plant in over thirty years and it's the radical environmentalists (and their lawyer enablers) who have constructed the legal and regulatory roadblocks. All made possible by a couple of badly written and horribly executed federal laws.
This entire environmental charade is based on a lie. And we know it.
We should be thankful that the ClimateGate emails were finally brought to light, curiously, no thanks to WikiLeaks. As an aside, if Julian Assange were so interested in bringing truth to the masses and uncovering corruption, why wasn't he instrumental in making those emails public? Huh, Julian? Where were you when you could have done the planet a real favor by uncovering a massive hoax, one that has cost us untold trillions of dollars for no reason other than a crisis manufactured for political purposes?
I'm digressing again. Sorry.
Representative Lewis is to be applauded for his intention to defund the EPA. This should be merely the beginning of the dismantling of Washington bureaus who are standing in the way of America's greatness by prohibiting the utilization of our natural resources. Granted, we should be judicious in our use of these resources and not return to the excesses that created the need for an EPA in the first place. No one wants to see rivers on fire again. But we've learned a lot and corrected our mistakes, something that radical environmentalists refuse to acknowledge.
We can and should be harvesting the things Given to us in a responsible way.
Kudos to Representative Lewis. Don't stop now.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
More Reading Assignments
Here's a few more links for you to peruse while the heavy lifting for the move begins. And no, I didn't find any bodies in the attic yesterday. Just a box of Christmas lights.
Which is more radical: the idea of abolishing the EPA altogether, or their actions to eliminate an estimated 800,000 jobs in the middle of the greatest economic downturn in memory? Also, ask yourself if this seems like the action of a government acting in the nation's best interest.
Increasingly, we're hearing warning bells about our economy. Here's another one.
Florida voter alert! If you live in the 8th District, you have the opportunity to rid Washington of the execrable Alan Grayson. His twisting of soundbites borders on the insane, like many of his remarks during his tenure. Thank goodness his efforts are backfiring on him. We deserve better representation.
Obama as the real Agent Smith.
Even I didn't know that all these anti-American groups existed, and certainly not in these numbers. Watch all the clips if you didn't see the show yesterday. And if, after watching, you're not just a bit concerned, then watch again. I can remember when the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" were dirty words. They still are to those who know their history and understand their goals, which is complete control over you, your family and your life. This is serious stuff and worthy of your time to find out as much as you can about these people. Of course, that's why you're here in the first place.
Oh, and could you hand me that tape gun?
Which is more radical: the idea of abolishing the EPA altogether, or their actions to eliminate an estimated 800,000 jobs in the middle of the greatest economic downturn in memory? Also, ask yourself if this seems like the action of a government acting in the nation's best interest.
Increasingly, we're hearing warning bells about our economy. Here's another one.
Florida voter alert! If you live in the 8th District, you have the opportunity to rid Washington of the execrable Alan Grayson. His twisting of soundbites borders on the insane, like many of his remarks during his tenure. Thank goodness his efforts are backfiring on him. We deserve better representation.
Obama as the real Agent Smith.
Even I didn't know that all these anti-American groups existed, and certainly not in these numbers. Watch all the clips if you didn't see the show yesterday. And if, after watching, you're not just a bit concerned, then watch again. I can remember when the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" were dirty words. They still are to those who know their history and understand their goals, which is complete control over you, your family and your life. This is serious stuff and worthy of your time to find out as much as you can about these people. Of course, that's why you're here in the first place.
Oh, and could you hand me that tape gun?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
You Too Can Become A Propagandist!
Hey, America. Have you ever watched a propaganda film, maybe from Hitler's Germany during WWII or perhaps that flick about the latest advancements in Cuban medicine and said to yourself, "I could do that."
Here's your chance, America. You too can now make propaganda films for your government. No experience necessary. Just visit your Environmental Protection Agency's website for instructions on how to become the next Michael Moore or Joseph Goebbels.
Your friends and neighbors will gasp in amazement as you direct them to http://www.regulations.gov/ in order to show them how the regulatory process works and why it's important for all the agencies in Washington. You'll be able to tell everyone that federal regulations touch nearly every aspect of modern American life, from that morning cup of coffee to the television show you watch while you drink that cup of regulated coffee, all the way down to the air you breathe while you watch the regulated TV program and drink your regulated coffee. Maybe, if you're lucky enough, you'll get to explain why the EPA also wants to regulate your breath.
Just think of the newfound respect you'll earn as a trusted member of our great society. Nobody will be able to refute you when you tell them all the regulations that accompany the vague laws that Congress can't bother to read before passing are actually laws themselves and carry the full weight of fines and jail time. Watch the amusement on their faces when you tell them that the number of regulations outnumber the laws by roughly ten to one! If your friends ever wondered why America can't compete with other countries in the global economy, when you're finished with your very own propaganda spot, they'll know.
And now for the best part. You have a chance to win $2500. That's right, you could win $2500 of your own money!
So, get to work. Charge up those videocams and start documenting how the thousands of regulations that our Founders never envisioned work to keep the U S government in business controlling you, your family and your future.
Do it today!
Here's your chance, America. You too can now make propaganda films for your government. No experience necessary. Just visit your Environmental Protection Agency's website for instructions on how to become the next Michael Moore or Joseph Goebbels.
Your friends and neighbors will gasp in amazement as you direct them to http://www.regulations.gov/ in order to show them how the regulatory process works and why it's important for all the agencies in Washington. You'll be able to tell everyone that federal regulations touch nearly every aspect of modern American life, from that morning cup of coffee to the television show you watch while you drink that cup of regulated coffee, all the way down to the air you breathe while you watch the regulated TV program and drink your regulated coffee. Maybe, if you're lucky enough, you'll get to explain why the EPA also wants to regulate your breath.
Just think of the newfound respect you'll earn as a trusted member of our great society. Nobody will be able to refute you when you tell them all the regulations that accompany the vague laws that Congress can't bother to read before passing are actually laws themselves and carry the full weight of fines and jail time. Watch the amusement on their faces when you tell them that the number of regulations outnumber the laws by roughly ten to one! If your friends ever wondered why America can't compete with other countries in the global economy, when you're finished with your very own propaganda spot, they'll know.
And now for the best part. You have a chance to win $2500. That's right, you could win $2500 of your own money!
So, get to work. Charge up those videocams and start documenting how the thousands of regulations that our Founders never envisioned work to keep the U S government in business controlling you, your family and your future.
Do it today!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Keeping Up With the Competition II: Enough with the Regulations, Already
Here's the best news that isn't fit to print. The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report on air quality trends. And guess what? Our air is much cleaner today than it was forty years ago. That's no real surprise. It's also gotten much cleaner over the last twenty years than the previous twenty years. Again, that's not much of a surprise either.
The surprise is that this wasn't reported by the MSM.
So, what accounts for the embargo on what should be considered good news and a story of success against the ravages of mankind upon the planet? Could it be that this information is being smothered in an attempt to convince the public we still need the Cap and Trade Bill?
Even more important is this question: How much regulation is enough?
It's becoming clear that what we're doing is working, and judging from this report, working quite well, thank you. But at what point does regulation begin to become counterproductive, costing more in regulatory fees, fines, and unecessary lawsuits? And how much cost is added to the price of doing business because of them? Also, are we hanging a regulatory millstone around the neck of American businesses that other countries don't?
To answer this question, we need look no further than California. Their Legislative and Analytic Office is now starting to see the negative effects of too much regulation. The report notes the exodus of businesses from the state due to environmental overregulation and the negative impact on job creation that logically follows. The next thing to fall is tax income for the state, which results is spending deficits when politicians won't stop spending.
One would think that with a warning sign the size of the state of California, that Washington and the Obama administration would at least consider the possiblity that overregulation will significantly hamper our ability to compete in the global marketplace. This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, EPA head Lisa Jackson has indicated in an interview with Forbes online that her agency will increase the regulatory pressure on American businesses. She states:
It's this blog's opinion that we've been very effective with the environmental regulations we've put in place over the years.
It's time for us to consider a moratorium on any new environmental regulations for a minimum of three years and a reduction in the funding of the EPA.
Our ability to compete with the rest of the world depend upon it.
The surprise is that this wasn't reported by the MSM.
So, what accounts for the embargo on what should be considered good news and a story of success against the ravages of mankind upon the planet? Could it be that this information is being smothered in an attempt to convince the public we still need the Cap and Trade Bill?
Even more important is this question: How much regulation is enough?
It's becoming clear that what we're doing is working, and judging from this report, working quite well, thank you. But at what point does regulation begin to become counterproductive, costing more in regulatory fees, fines, and unecessary lawsuits? And how much cost is added to the price of doing business because of them? Also, are we hanging a regulatory millstone around the neck of American businesses that other countries don't?
To answer this question, we need look no further than California. Their Legislative and Analytic Office is now starting to see the negative effects of too much regulation. The report notes the exodus of businesses from the state due to environmental overregulation and the negative impact on job creation that logically follows. The next thing to fall is tax income for the state, which results is spending deficits when politicians won't stop spending.
One would think that with a warning sign the size of the state of California, that Washington and the Obama administration would at least consider the possiblity that overregulation will significantly hamper our ability to compete in the global marketplace. This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, EPA head Lisa Jackson has indicated in an interview with Forbes online that her agency will increase the regulatory pressure on American businesses. She states:
I think it's fair to say that, yes, we will be putting out more rules.She goes on to laud an activist role for the agency,
I would definitely describe it as an active EPA. And proactive. "Activist" calls to mind the idea that we only have one point of view. What I've said is that we have to be driven by science and the law. The laws that we have in this country to govern environmental matters are extremely powerful, and in many cases just need to be used and used consistently. Maybe progressive would be a word I feel more comfortable with.If Ms. Jackson were at all driven by science, she'd know that ClimatedGate has blown an enormous hole in the theory of man-made "climate change". If she were at all sincere, she's be hesitant to push for more and more restrictive regulations in light of the CRU emails showing a deliberate effort by "climate scientists" to omit and manipulate climate data to twist the outcome into something less than the truth.
It's this blog's opinion that we've been very effective with the environmental regulations we've put in place over the years.
It's time for us to consider a moratorium on any new environmental regulations for a minimum of three years and a reduction in the funding of the EPA.
Our ability to compete with the rest of the world depend upon it.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
How to Know When Government Becomes Too Large
Ever heard of a "delta smelt"? Neither had this blog until several month ago when Sean Hannity took a road trip to what was once fertile farmland in California. He highlighted the consequences of the Endangered Species Act where people were denied water for farming by their own government. In a clear and blatant violation of the Constitutions' provision to "promote the general welfare", zealous environmentalists ignored their fellow citizens and placed the needs of a fish above those of humans. The cost has been high, with farmers, forced out of business by a misguided law using food banks and unemployment just to get by.
That's one example. Here's another from California.
Their new energy efficiency regulations for televisions. The goal is to reduce the energy consumption of TV's by 49%. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Right up until you ask yourself why the government would care what type of television you purchase. Isn't that, you know, outside their authority? Is there a provision in the Constitution for the regulation of televisions? Won't these regulations increase the cost of a new TV? When did watching a television become anyone else's business.
That's two. There are many, many more.
This is becoming important for economic as well as legal reasons. One of the primary differences between conservatives and "progressives" is that we conservatives recognize that in order for there to be freedom, the influence of government must have a limit. A line beyond which government cannot go. "Progressives" don't recognize any limits to the power of government and seek to expand it into every nook and cranny of private life, whether there is a valid need or not. California's regulations for televisions is a prime example.
When government has become large enough to add significant costs in the private sector where there was previously no such interference, it's time to question whether things have gotten out of hand. In the case of environmental regulation, there is clear evidence that the law is working against us by forcing us to use products that in many cases are inferior in quality and don't work very well. In the case of California's delta smelt fiasco, it's plainly working against the interests of the people and should not be allowed to continue under any circumstances. The failure of the courts to prevent this gross abuse of power is a disgrace to the bench and an affront to every freedom-loving American.
It's time to ask some fundamental questions about the role of government in America. The first one should be this: Is our government working for us or against us?
That's one example. Here's another from California.
Their new energy efficiency regulations for televisions. The goal is to reduce the energy consumption of TV's by 49%. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Right up until you ask yourself why the government would care what type of television you purchase. Isn't that, you know, outside their authority? Is there a provision in the Constitution for the regulation of televisions? Won't these regulations increase the cost of a new TV? When did watching a television become anyone else's business.
That's two. There are many, many more.
This is becoming important for economic as well as legal reasons. One of the primary differences between conservatives and "progressives" is that we conservatives recognize that in order for there to be freedom, the influence of government must have a limit. A line beyond which government cannot go. "Progressives" don't recognize any limits to the power of government and seek to expand it into every nook and cranny of private life, whether there is a valid need or not. California's regulations for televisions is a prime example.
When government has become large enough to add significant costs in the private sector where there was previously no such interference, it's time to question whether things have gotten out of hand. In the case of environmental regulation, there is clear evidence that the law is working against us by forcing us to use products that in many cases are inferior in quality and don't work very well. In the case of California's delta smelt fiasco, it's plainly working against the interests of the people and should not be allowed to continue under any circumstances. The failure of the courts to prevent this gross abuse of power is a disgrace to the bench and an affront to every freedom-loving American.
It's time to ask some fundamental questions about the role of government in America. The first one should be this: Is our government working for us or against us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)