Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/09/2009 6:53:10 AM PST by Marty62
The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
After your health care cost skyrocket, and your energy costs skyrocket, wait until you see you tax bill.
The dependent democrat base will need more money to pay for their heating, electric, food, and necessities. The public schools will need more for their heating, electric, school buses, and cafeterias.
Groceries will go up because of their heating, electric, and shipping......Everthing goes up and up.
...And the angel was crying:" A measure of wheat for a penny! A measure of wheat for a penny!"
As Charles Krauthammer put it, Obama is saying “Give me Cap and Trade or I’ll use the EPA to just give you Cap!” He’s willing to cripple the economy to get his way, the rotten thug that he and his administration is. Even if they secretly want Cap and Trade, if the congress had any self respect at all, they’d tell him to take his blackmail threat and shove it and cut the EPA budget by 50% just to put an exclamation point on it. But instead they’ll roll over and further erode their own relevance.
I just e-mailed my SIN (not sp)
Made it clear this has to STOP NOW!
I just e-mailed my SIN (not sp)
Made it clear this has to STOP NOW!
IS THAT A THREAT??
The President of the United States is now a THREAT to the Nation.
He was a threat before the election.
Since he took office, the nation has been under constant attack and destruction.
He is an enemy of the nation.
Abuse of power.
I work in the coal industry and this gov’t is trying their best to shut us down. They are even talking about putting a freeze on all federal coal leases.
Here is an analysis that was supplied by Troutman Sanders Advisory:
EPA Issues Climate Change Endangerment Finding
EPA announced today that it has promulgated its long-awaited endangerment finding. Evidently timed to coincide with the beginning of the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, the Agency’s finding states that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by Man – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride – are contributing to dangerous climate change. According to EPA, “[t]he accumulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, the poor, the elderly - that can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.”
Although the endangerment finding technically is being made in the context of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, the finding will trigger GHG regulation of a variety of mobile and stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The first GHG regulation that EPA will issue will be its light-duty motor vehicle GHG regulation, likely by March 2010. This regulation is being issued jointly with the Department of Transportation and primarily requires improvements in fuel economy for automobiles and light duty trucks beginning in Model Year 2012. Comments on the motor vehicle rulemaking were due on November 27, 2009.
EPA states that once the motor vehicle GHG regulations become effective sixty days after they are issued next March, GHGs will be considered to be regulated pollutants under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit program. As a result, at that time, new “major” stationary sources of GHG emissions, and modifications of existing “major” stationary sources that “significantly” increase their GHG emissions, will be required to obtain a permit setting forth Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for those emissions.
Both EPA and business in general have a high level of concern that a very large number of sources could be required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions when GHGs become regulated pollutants next year. As a result, to avoid grid-locking the PSD permit system, the Agency has proposed a “tailoring” rule designed to limit applicability of the PSD program to only the largest GHG emitters, at least for an initial five-year period. Under the tailoring rule, “major” sources to which PSD requirements for GHG would become applicable would be those that emit more than 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2 equivalent, and a “significant” increase of GHG emissions from a modification would be defined at a level somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy. The tailoring rule would also set a 25,000 tpy threshold under the Title V operating permit program.
The legality of the tailoring rule has been questioned, however, as the CAA explicitly defines the PSD “major” source threshold as 100 tpy for sources in 28 industrial categories and 250 tpy for sources in all other categories, and the Title V threshold at 100 tpy. Comments on the tailoring rule proposal are due December 28, 2009.
The endangerment finding is likely to result in other forms of regulation as well. Numerous petitions are pending at EPA from various state and environmental groups seeking regulation of a variety of mobile sources (trucks, airplanes, ships, boats, equipment) and stationary sources. With the endangerment finding issued, EPA is likely to begin acting on these petitions next year. Additionally, last week the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with EPA seeking promulgation of a GHG National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Granting the petition could lead to highly draconian and unworkable emission control requirements.
We have to arrest the B-tards first. Does Citizens arrest still exist in the Law?
NO MORE polite talks and debates with that kind of political thugs and croocks!
Republicans have to wake up and go straight to the target in order to hit the head.
Protests and strikes are becoming urgents
“An order that goes unchallenged for 30 days goes into effect.”
Thats true,,,it becomes a “law” if unchallenged. My point is that it is nothing more than a law, and can be changed by simply passing a law repealing it, changing it, whatever. It doesnt become a constitutional amendment. Say EPA regulates greenhouse gas, or FCC regulates internet content. Congress can pass a specific law specifically undoing what they have just done.
But that takes a congress with the balls to do it, and no gay communist in the white house.
"Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?"
"The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We did not love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
And your TAGLINE! awesome,,,,
Also, i was speaking of the mechanics of the law. The endangered species act *could* be repealed by congress tomorrow. But in the real world, your right,,, they let rule making agencies publish rules,, that become law. Then they claim it wasnt their fault.
They never seem to get around to reigning in regulatory agency rules that become law. So i see your point.
Does this finding mean the 0bama administration
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
can kill anyone who emits CO2 ??
Here’s the rub: With something like this in the wind (no pun intended), lobbying dollars start to flow heavier and heavier. Our Congresscritters like that, a lot, and so nothing will be rolled back, by Republicans or Democrats.
Gee, shutting down coal will really make West Virginia “wild and wonderful”-
well, maybe “wild”
ya’ll can just get jobs working for Jay Rockefeller or maintaining the Sheets Byrd highways and monuments
It was Alinski who suggested using the environment to push his radical agenda. According to him, it's something everyone can agree on. "Health" is another.
The democrats know there isn't a climate crises. It's a tool.
The coal industry, if it were to agree to "sharing their wealth" and engaging in "social justice", it would be saved. It's not about pollution. It's about sharing the wealth. It's about money.
Ayan Rand was a futurist. She's considered a great philosopher, but what's happening today is exactly what she "predicted." The engine of the world is about to stop. "Social justice" has become the cog in the machine.
Good cop/bad cop. If they were to take everything in 2012, THEY would then be kings.
Turn the entire legislature over to conservatives in 2010 and that will neuter the executive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.