Posted on 03/04/2015 10:16:52 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Senates top Republican is telling states to ignore a central part of President Barack Obamas plans to curb the pollution blamed for global warming.
In an op-ed published Tuesday in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says states should reject Obamas proposed requirements for power plants to reduce carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. The rule, expected to be final this summer, would require states to submit plans as soon as 2016, or risk being forced to comply with a federal substitute.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Blah blah. If it costs your overlords any money, all of a sudden you find conservatism.
F U M M
IOW doubling down on chickenhsit by making it someone else's problem.
But then he’ll fund every dollar the EPA needs to ‘crucify’ these states.
“...carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas.”
A LIE! The chief “greenhouse gas” is H2O! The difference is so extreme that the so-called father of global warming stated something to the effect that you would increase global temperatures more by spitting than by driving your car for a year.
McConnell is encouraging the states to stand up to Obama before they capitulate to him.
That way ultimate victory will be all the sweeter - for Obama AND McConnell.
I know you are absolutely correct that the rube McConnell will do exactly that, but, it is high time for the people and the states put the dang brakes on complying and cooperating with these unelected Marxist political hacks dictating outside of the law and the Constitution. Tolerating these dictates and complying with them gives them undeserved credibility and justifies unjust governance.
This is nearly as impactful as a tax revolt.
If they can roll over us, we should roll them right back.
So, do we get to pick and choose which “rules” we’ll reject, or are we only allowed to reject the ones *they* say we can? What about the next guy that tells us to reject a certain rule? Which rule will it be? Why not just reject all EPA rules? Then we could abolish the EPA.
Because he still needs Kentucky votes. If he rolled over on that, he would lose his election.
He needs their approval to go to Washington. He needs Obama’s to maintain his lifestyle there.
Use the 10th Ammendment because we are too weak willed to do anything about the EPA or anything else. And that is what is going to happen folks.
The Alabama Supreme Court just came again and told probate judges to stop issuing gay marriage licenses. This is going to snowball as the elected uniparty fails to govern.
If water vapor condenses, falls as rain, absorbed by the soil, taken in by a plant's roots to combine with the carbon the plant took from the atmosphere to create things like cellulose and lignin, which if burned/decomposed, release CO2 and water vapor to the atmosphere.
It could be a plant that grew in the spring then burned in the summer or a plant that grew in a far back geologic period, was stored in the earth, mined, then burned to generate electricity.
But the statement that CO2 is the chief greenhouse gas is pure bushwah. The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor - period.
The whole “carbon footprint/global warming” chicken little screeching is getting very tiresome.
The Algores are like flies that have a one day life cycle, panicked about the sun dying as evening falls.
A bit late...after TOTALLY SELLING OUT over Amnesty.
Tell the states to ignore the surrender monkies
Monkeys
Exactly.
Why did you fund them Mich?
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.