Using the EPA to Conquer America

[PoliticalChic]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

"Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you."


Wow, have you got that right, sis!

Remember this?

"Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property
And that’s because he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties...
...the dude musing about the differences between “personal” and “private” property isn’t even the biggest WTF moment..."
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He s Against Private Property Not Personal Property Human Events


This is the sort of intelligence that put Obama in office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Take notes:

1. Definition of TOTALITARIANISM.

1 :centralized control by an autocratic authority.
This includes gaining control of private property via regulation

2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.
Totalitarianism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism


To one degee or another, every one of these philosophies fits that definition: communist, socialist, Nazi, Progressive, Modern Liberal, Democrat.






2. . On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism.
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010




Consider yourself fed

So you do consider environmentalism a communist plot. That's hilarious, given that most communist countries have atrocious environmental records.

Do emissions from coal fired plants stop when they hit a state border?

1. I just provided the dictionary definition which proves exactly what I said.

2.I also provided the testimony of one intimately experienced with communist governance.

3. "That's hilarious" is the sneering of a Liberal when unable to reply to the facts.

We don't have an autocracy.

An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control.

Since we have elections, and constitutional checks and balances, we cannot be an autocracy.

Imagine how much of a threat you'd be if you had an actual education.


The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.


Talmon refers to the sort of democracy that you embrace, one not centered on the individual....but reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.

You can invent any fake definition of autocracy you want but it doesn't save you from having been proven ignorant on the topic.

I am pleased however to see you throw the 2014 GOP landslide under the bus. lolol

Instead of NYLiar....how about you change your avi to "IgnoranceOnParade!"?

I don't think it's taken.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you do consider environmentalism a communist plot. That's hilarious, given that most communist countries have atrocious environmental records.

Do emissions from coal fired plants stop when they hit a state border?

1. I just provided the dictionary definition which proves exactly what I said.

2.I also provided the testimony of one intimately experienced with communist governance.

3. "That's hilarious" is the sneering of a Liberal when unable to reply to the facts.

We don't have an autocracy.

An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control.

Since we have elections, and constitutional checks and balances, we cannot be an autocracy.

Imagine how much of a threat you'd be if you had an actual education.


The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.


Talmon refers to the sort of democracy that you embrace, one not centered on the individual....but reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.

You can invent any fake definition of autocracy you want but it doesn't save you from having been proven ignorant on the topic.

I am pleased however to see you throw the 2014 GOP landslide under the bus. lolol

Instead of NYLiar....how about you change your avi to "IgnoranceOnParade!"?

I don't think it's taken.....

Why don't you prove that the US is an autocracy.

Show us the actions that the President can take unchecked by any external powers.

Start with proving to us that there is no such thing as a presidential election, and no such thing as the Supreme Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“double-digit electric rate increases”

"... havea huge impact on our state’s utility rates, and these rate increases will disproportionally harm low-income Arkansans.”




10. Let's remind all that this was exactly what Obama said he wished for, when he was a candidate. When one plan didn't work, he turned the EPA loose on consumers.

" Pence claims that Obama said energy costs will skyrocket with a cap-and-trade plan
... power companies will pass the cost of buying those credits on to the consumer, driving up the price of energy.

"I don't think you need to look any further than the president himself ... who literally said [if] his cap-and-trade proposals were to pass, that utility rates, his words now, would, 'necessarily skyrocket,'" said Pence. He added that Democrat "John Dingle of Michigan and the Commerce Committee said people don't realize this is a tax, and a 'great big one.'"

... Barack Obama's original quote, which came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the presidential campaign, January 2008.

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told theChronicle. "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

While Obama was talking specifically about cap-and-trade, he was also making a larger point ..."
Pence claims that Obama said energy costs will skyrocket with a cap-and-trade plan PolitiFact




The dunces who voted for this incompetent were just as incompetent. He told 'em he would ruin the economy, and lower their standard of living....and they responded 'duh..yup....er, yup.'



Same ol' same ol'.....

"Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the Recovery as During the Recession The Weekly Standard

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. "Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) tried to discredit a study referenced by Republicans that is highly critical of the EPA’s proposed rules. Two witnesses at the hearing are employed by the firm that conducted the study, NERA Economic Consulting.

Cartwright noted that the report in question was paid for by several coal, petrochemical and mining trade groups and suppliers — companies that would have to spend millions to comply with the more stringent clean air regulations.

“Is it a matter of complete indifference to you whether those organizations continue to fund studies like this?” Cartwright asked NERA senior vice president David Harrison Jr."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media


So....if they paid for the study, they must be in the tank for those interests?
Let's hold that thought.





Whenever data comes out by reputable scientists or corporations that disputes what they say, they accuse same of simply being bribed.

Well, then if it's all about money....all those global warming studies that support the scam must be bogus....



After all....that's where the money is, 'finding proof' of global warming.

" 'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research
Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics.

Two environmental activist groups –GreenpeaceandThe Nature Conservancy– raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of the 91 conservative think tanks ....

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth."
Dark Money Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming Denier Research - Forbes



Good to know we can discount any pro-global warming data paid for by government or by those who benefit from the scam.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, you are beating a dead horse. Coal is done. Wind is already much cheaper than coal, and solar will be before our President's second term is up. Grid scale batteries will be a reality before the end of this year. Economics alone will end using coal for the generation of electricity.

Don't need 'dark money' to study and be alarmed about the effects of a warming world. Just do a study of photographs from the 100 years in the Rockies and Cascades. Then continue on with the same for the Himalayas, Alps, and the mountains in Scandavian nations. One can see the warming very clearly. And, talking to the people in the Andean villages that have far less summer at the end of summer for crops, one can see the future for many that depend glacial water.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Well, looks like some people simply don't know what is really happening in this nation. Looks like those people in that ultra-liberal state of Texas don't think much of PolitialShit's opinions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

... we can discount any pro-global warming data paid for by government or by those who benefit from the scam.



12. "The long and short of it is think tanks and activist groups supporting global warming restrictions raise and spend far more money than think tanks and activist groups opposing global warming restrictions. Global warming activists may think they are scoring short-term political points by lying and misleading the public about such funding, but their lies will certainly come back to haunt them. They always do."
Dark Money Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming Denier Research - Forbes



"... Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) went after [EPA-consultant] Tierney, asking if she had ever navigated a water-filled depression in a farmer’s field. Russell’s question referred to a long list of “waterways” — including everything from a wetland to a puddle — that Republicans say could be controlled by the EPA under the agency’s proposed revisions to the Clean Water Act..... the EPA’s proposed changes are based on “scientific evidence.”

“Scientific evidence, eh?” Russell responded. “Well, I will try to scientifically navigate a puddle after a rainstorm.”



... the EPA’s plan to boost air quality standards by reducing ozone levels.

Opponents to the proposal have complained that lowering levels of detectable ozone from the current 75 parts per billion to the proposed 65 ppb will cost taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars per year, while minimally reducing the risk to Americans’ health.

What’s more, Smith said, the EPA has grossly underestimated the cost of its proposal.

“The agency is suggesting that a tighter ozone standard may cost tens of billions of dollars per year,” she said. “NERA’s more evidence-based cost estimates are hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media


One should consider why it seems that the desire to spend taxpayer money appears to be far more important than any actual benefits of same.


Can you say 'income redistribution'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There must be some reason why fabricated benefits are used to support huge outlays of money that is taken from the middle class.

Disagree, and malicious motives are attributed to you.....yet none can deny the reality that those who oppose the power grab use the same water, and breath the same air as the environmentalist saps.



13. Professor Wallace Kaufman, environmental activist and former president of several environmental groups, admits:

"Environmentalists overwhelmingly back regulations and discount the costs. When people object, environmentalists too easily assume that they are driven by greed and callousness....the Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation admit no virtue or honor among property rights activists.

Environmentalists like to say that the choice is between self-interest and public-interest, but if I want my roadside to look natural to please my eye, or a wilderness where I can see grizzlies, isn't that also self-interest?"
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 118-119



For Liberals, the hoi polloi of the environmental movement, opponents are never 'wrong,' they are evil, malevolent, of the lowest endeavors.


Mark well what Kaufman says:

"There is no evidence that property rights activists love nature less than other Americans. And they may be fighting for a tradition that is even more basic to the American psyche and system of government. Environmentalists who plan to pit environmental regulations against property rights may lose more than they gain."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 121.

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. Then there is the extremism that accompanies the religious fervor of the environmentalist wackos.

There can be no limits, no ability to prioritize!


"...simple-minded thinking can lead to expensive mistakes ....Few public campaigns have cost more money than those against toxic chemicals....Dr. Bruce Ames, a biochemiset and inventor of many tests for cancer-causing chemicals, has said,"When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
"Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer (NCPA policy report)," Dr. Bruce Ames, p. 34.


a. "E. Donald Elliott, a Yale law professor and former EPA general counsel, said "I have never seen a single rule where we weren't paying at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."
Forbes, "You Can't Get There From Here," July 6, 1992, Brimelow and Spencer.




b. "Some rules, he said,cost more than $30 billion. EPA rules passed in 1990 about wood preservatives have cost $5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save. according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
Ibid.


"....$5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save...."



So....what have we learned?

Much of the EPA regulation does more harm than good, costs outrageous amounts, increases the size of government, and de facto steals private property via regulation.

Who are the morons who support this????

 

[idb]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's your argument that pollution is not an interstate problem?

You many have heard of this....


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That has nothing to do with what I asked.

What's your argument that POLLUTION is not an interstate problem?

The states should be managing this not the feds.. Local governments.. those closest to WE THE PEOPLE... not the feds!

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's your argument that pollution is not an interstate problem?

You many have heard of this....


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That has nothing to do with what I asked.

What's your argument that POLLUTION is not an interstate problem?

I see....you're of the persuasion that believes the Constitution is obsolete.

The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from dealing with national problems.

The US Constitution requires the fed to manage disputes between states. If state A is causing problems with state B they should first and fore most work out the problem. Only after they can not reach a mutual agreed on ending should the fed become involved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

Your confused... Only Liberal democrats seize land for the "common good" from republicans and oil companies to keep them from being self sufficient. Were the pocketbook you fools think belongs to you..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

 

[idb]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

Your confused... Only Liberal democrats seize land for the "common good" from republicans and oil companies to keep them from being self sufficient. Were the pocketbook you fools think belongs to you..

Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

 

[NYcarbineer]

... we can discount any pro-global warming data paid for by government or by those who benefit from the scam.



12. "The long and short of it is think tanks and activist groups supporting global warming restrictions raise and spend far more money than think tanks and activist groups opposing global warming restrictions. Global warming activists may think they are scoring short-term political points by lying and misleading the public about such funding, but their lies will certainly come back to haunt them. They always do."
Dark Money Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming Denier Research - Forbes



"... Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) went after [EPA-consultant] Tierney, asking if she had ever navigated a water-filled depression in a farmer’s field. Russell’s question referred to a long list of “waterways” — including everything from a wetland to a puddle — that Republicans say could be controlled by the EPA under the agency’s proposed revisions to the Clean Water Act..... the EPA’s proposed changes are based on “scientific evidence.”

“Scientific evidence, eh?” Russell responded. “Well, I will try to scientifically navigate a puddle after a rainstorm.”



... the EPA’s plan to boost air quality standards by reducing ozone levels.

Opponents to the proposal have complained that lowering levels of detectable ozone from the current 75 parts per billion to the proposed 65 ppb will cost taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars per year, while minimally reducing the risk to Americans’ health.

What’s more, Smith said, the EPA has grossly underestimated the cost of its proposal.

“The agency is suggesting that a tighter ozone standard may cost tens of billions of dollars per year,” she said. “NERA’s more evidence-based cost estimates are hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media


One should consider why it seems that the desire to spend taxpayer money appears to be far more important than any actual benefits of same.


Can you say 'income redistribution'?

The Republicans could have done away with the EPA when they were in power from 2001 to 2006. Go cry to them.

You are out on the fringe on the environment. You will never get the pollution you want. Get used to it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

That's right, like the use of eminent domain laws to take land by those communist oil companies and their full-blown socialist Republican dictator cheerleaders.

Your confused... Only Liberal democrats seize land for the "common good" from republicans and oil companies to keep them from being self sufficient. Were the pocketbook you fools think belongs to you..

Of course, you're correct.
An even more incisive characterization:

".Environmentalists are almost always political liberals who have little sympathy for Christian fundamentalists....Yet environmental faith is quite rigid, and its story, biblical.....[matching] the story of the Garden of Eden....Innocent pre-industrial,pre-scientific cultures show what we could have been, while civilized cultures show how low we have fallen. In Eden and in the environmental story, the harmony of nature and its ability to nurture human kind are destroyed by ambition, greed, and sin. These sins are inflicted on nature and native peoples almost exclusively by white males."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," chapter seven.

One can see why these ideas are de rigueur in university today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to expose the stupidity of subscribing to environmentalism.


No, it's not a science, it is a spin-off of communism, the de jure theft of private property via regulation, and 'movement' is sold to those in search of some sort of ersatz 'heroism,' and meaning in their empty lives, the less than astute hand-wringers, as the idea that they are saving the earth.

Oh boy!

It's the use of the EPA in the totalitarian attempt to centralize all power, and further destroy the federalism on which our Constitution is based.






And, in the following, you'll find another reason to end the false 'crusade.'

1. "... EPA Rules Would Hurt Economy, Threaten States’ ‘Sovereignty’

2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten rules governing the nation’s water and air quality would have a crippling effect on state and local economies and send consumer energy prices soaring, the attorneys general of two rural states told a House panel ...




3. ... the EPA’s proposals to amend three of its regulations.

The first would mandate reductions in emissions at coal-fired power plants and similar facilities;

the second would require reductions in ozone, or smog, levels; and

the third would clarify the types of waterways controlled by the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

... the EPA’s growing efforts to meddle in matters best left to the states.

4. “The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect [the state’s waterways] for ourselves, our downstream neighbors and all of our progeny,” Fox said.

Those protections, he explained, begin with the state’s constitution, which asserts Montana’s right to make decisions regarding its water use — and requires the state legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection” of its waters.... the EPA’s actions are nothing more than a power grab.




5. ... it is my duty to stand up and push back when I perceive an agency of the federal government overreaching the authority given to it by Congress and proposing actions that infringe on our sovereignty,”...


6. ...EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told a congressional panel two weeks ago. “We are simply trying to define it better for everyone, so everyone is on the same page.”

7. “The EPA’s attempt to ‘clarify’ the definition of waters [is] so expansive that it could likely control land use activities over most of the United States,” ....“At best, the proposed definition simply creates more confusion and litigation.”

At worst, she said, the EPA’s actions will give it “unfettered regulatory jurisdiction” over most of the water in her state."
AGs Oppose EPA Clean Water Act Clean Power Plan PJ Media




Be very clear.
This is in the Science Forum simply to make certain that those who wrongly believe that 'environmentalism' is science see it.

This is real issue::

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

The use of the EPA, for political gain, proves that.

So environmentalism is a communist plot?

Ultimately. Most liberals aren't aware of it, though, as they are low-info voters. Beware of your private property rights being taken from you. I am suspect that would be in this administrations, plans. Then you have full-blown socialism, the first big step to communism, with the right dictator.

So we must endure the polluters, unfettered, to prove we're not communist?

Unregulated nuclear plants, the conservative vision of liberty.

You people are amazingly retarded. You especially.

Your side thinks CO2 is a pollutant... the shear ignorance of that is astounding... My advice is that liberals should stop polluting what they call pollution. They should lead by example!

I don't have a side and I don't give a shit about CO2. I give a shit about pollution. It's sheer ignorance to want to let individuals or businesses pollute the air, land, and water without restraint, regulation, or consequences.

"I don't have a side...."

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!