I have my own opinions about his communications and survey, but I thought I'd see what you think.
= Gas water heaters?
= Gas fireplaces?
= Gas grills?
Sure there are a lot more. They are all fools working for the Cabal to enact an end to US...!
There’s a beautiful thread on Tweater where people post pics of libs/Dems cooking on gas stoves.
FLOTUS
AOC
Beta O’Dork
Gavin Newsom
Booty-Gig
Greta Thunberg
Fauxcahontas (hers says the methane is stolen from tribal lands)
Barbeques and BIC lighters are next. The RAT pricks want to run our lives completely.
"Look Out: Gas Stoves are the Admin's Newest Target (Idaho)"
Respectfully to Sen. Risch, why doesn't he argue the following against Biden's proposed gas stove policy?
Patriots are reminded that Biden can only sign or veto bills from Congress which are reasonably based on Congress's constitutional Article i, Section 8 limited powers.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
More specifically, the problem with bills restricting gas stoves is that there is nothing in Section 8-limited powers that allows Congress to make bills to regulate either gas or gas stoves imo.
In fact, Justice Joseph story had volunteered a list of example commerce-related issues that, although intimately (Story's word) related to commerce, are not within Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Among those examples is how a product is designed and built imo.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory.Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
The bottom line i this. ALL the states desperately need to effectively "secede" from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A).
If the repeal 16&17A amendment was strictly limited to that purpose, then relatively little, or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification imo.
only Trump would exit the Paris Climate Accord. think about it.
this gas stove nonsense is happening all over the world:
10 Jan: Channel News Australia: Canberra Natural Gas Bans To Hit Appliance Retailers
by David Richards
Appliance retailers in Australia are facing new problems this year, with bans on gas appliances set to kick in as Canberra reacts to concerns.
Around the world, Governments and woke lobby groups including Australia want to ban gas fires and stoves, claiming they are a danger to health and that they are adding to environment issues...
The Australian Capital Territory has already moved to ban natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water, with the government committed to phasing out natural gas use for residents and business owners over the next two decades, in an effort to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2045.
The transition will kick off with bans on new gas connections for certain property types taking effect this year...
https://www.channelnews.com.au/canberra-natural-gas-bans-to-hit-appliance-retailers/
It won’t be long before the left wing pukes try to ban wood stoves.
I saw on TV a pic of BiteMe meeting with the Japanese PM. Sure looked like a flaming gas fire in the fireplace in the White House.
We have a gas stove, furnace, dryer, and hot water heater. Gas bill arrived today - less than $50. This house used to be all electric, and the power bill could top $300 in the winter. Our power bill now is about $125.
We love cooking on our gas stove!