For Libs, Nothing Is Ever Enough

Just when NBC’s Chuck Todd worked himself into an on-air orgasm over the President’s good week last week, handed to him by the Supreme Court, the Supremes brought the nation’s chief lame duck up short on his serious agenda—specifically the EPA’s attempt at raising our electricity prices to previously unknown heights.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” he said on the campaign trail in 2008.

Three years ago, he got the EPA to begin to issue standards which would do just that, especially when you consider that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Early this week, despite his victory lap on so-called gay marriage, the Supremes handed him a crushing defeat on a huge economic issue which involves more than 39% of America as opposed to 1.7% of America (‘gay marriage’) or something like 10% of America (Obamacare subsidies).

Essentially, the Supremes said that the administration could not make up cost data as it went along—a bad habit the EPA has in just about everything it does.

“The cases today are shocking,” said Nan Aron to Politico. Aron is the kind of liberal Politico goes to for an instant quote. She is president of the Alliance for Justice, whatever that is. “Last week was wonderful and no one can take away the victories that occurred, but I think it’s also important to understand those victories in a context [that] the court is one that continues to rule in favor of powerful and wealthy interests at the expense of most Americans. The decisions certainly today suggest that trend continues.”

In other words, it’s never enough.

So, the LGBTQ (yes, the Q DOES stand for “Queer” I’m told) community was in love with the Supreme Court.

And so was Barack Obama.

But let one decision come down which goes against leftist orthodoxy, and they’re back to being conservative scum.

Well, nothing much has changed.

The truth is that the Supreme Court has always been willing—no matter the language of the Constitution—to embrace the whims of public opinion.

From Dread Scott to Brown vs. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade to Obamacare to gay marriage, it is as if the members of the Court run the world’s biggest and most influential Gallup Poll and decide accordingly.

But only on the big, high profile decisions. Which, it should be noted, are a very small portion of the Court’s caseload.

I’ve always explained Roe v. Wade by suggesting that the Justices of the Supreme Court read the Washington Post, too. And, back in 1973, most Americans backed the right of a woman to control her own body, irrespective of the fact that if you killed a live baby outside of the womb, you would go to prison.

Not surprisingly, so did the Supreme Court, using some very tortured reasoning to discover a “right” previously unknown.

But, when it comes to a hard economic issue–like how much your electric bill is–they are also more than a bit populist, no matter what people like Ms. Aron tell left-leaning publications like Politico.

The hard fact for Ms. Aron and our President to understand is that expensive power and electric cars to please the global warming crowd simply isn’t on the American agenda.

And, just like they did with gay marriage and Obamacare—they went with the majority, and the majority is fine with cheap electricity generated by coal.

Am I happy with the gay marriage decision and the Obamacare decision? Of course not.

You win some, and you lose some.

But, like most Americans, I like my electricity cheap. And that’s not in support of the wealthy and powerful. It’s in support of you and me.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: The Obama Administration Just Lost A BIG One At The Supreme Court

After handing President Obama a couple of huge wins last week with respect to Obamacare and same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has just delivered a big blow to the administration’s environmental agenda that threatened to cripple the energy industry.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court has ruled against Obama’s EPA in its effort to impose wildly expensive new rules on power plants. The Washington Examiner explains what the newly enacted rules by the Environmental Protection Agency were intended to do:

The EPA rules in question regulate hazardous air pollutants and mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants, known as the MATS regulations. The regulations went into effect April 16. The utility industry argues that the rules cost them billions of dollars to comply and that EPA ignored the cost issue in putting the regulations into effect.

As the Examiner article goes on to explain, the impact of the EPA’s new rules on power plant emissions has already been felt in certain parts of the country, as facilities have either been upgraded at great expense — passed along to consumers — or have been shut down by their cash-strapped operators:

Many of the companies have either made the investments or closed power plants to comply. If the investments necessary to upgrade a plant to comply with the regulation aren’t justified when considering the operational costs, revenues earned and other factors, then the decision is made to retire it.

In its coverage of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the EPA’s onerous new pollution rules, which had been challenged by industry groups as well as by some 20 states, The New York Times reports on the major setback to one of Obama’s “most ambitious environmental initiatives”:

The Clean Air Act required the regulations to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

CNN notes of the court’s decision that the EPA acted “unreasonably” that the issue of cost vs. benefit was central to the justices’ ruling that the agency overstepped its bounds.

At issue in this case was whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it declined to consider costs in determining whether it was appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Will 2015 Be The Year Of Renewable Fuel Standard Reform?

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) management—er, mismanagement—of the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) is indicative of growing frustration over both the agency and the RFS itself.

At the June 18 hearing, Senators grilled EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator, Janet McCabe. Senator James Lankford (R-OK), who chaired the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, opened the hearing by calling the RFS “unworkable in its current form.” In her comments, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) claimed that the EPA’s management of the RFS ignored “congressional intent,” while creating “uncertainty” and costing “investment.”

In addressing concerns from a different energy era, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005, which established the first renewable-fuel volume mandate. Two years later, through the Energy Independence and Security Act, the RFS program was expanded.

The EPA administers the RFS and is required to finalize proposed fuel volumes by November 30 of each year—something it has failed to do every year since 2009.

One day before the hearing on “Re-examining EPA’s Management of the RFS Program,” the American Petroleum Institute held a press call in which an unlikely coalition of RFS opponents—the American Motorcyclist Association, the Environmental Working Group, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants—sounded optimistic that 2015 is the year for RFS reform.

While the EPA’s renewable-fuel volumes, released May 29, don’t meet the law’s target of 22.25 billion gallons for 2016, they do increase year after year—with the 2016 target being an increase over current use. Addressing the EPA’s new numbers, USNews reports: “The update calls for a 27 percent increase in what the EPA calls ‘advanced biofuels’ from 2014 through 2016, a catch-all category that includes cellulosic ethanol made from corn stalks, husks and other leftovers from a harvest, plus fuel converted from sugar cane, soybean oil, and waste oils and greases, such as from fast-food restaurants. Combined with conventional corn ethanol, the proposed volumes overall rise 9 percent.”

In pressing McCabe on the RFS and the consistently missed deadlines, Lankford asked: “How does RFS get back on schedule? Or, has Congress put a requirement on EPA that it can’t fulfill?” McCabe promised they were working on it and offered some vague explanations. Lankford then asked: “I assume you would agree there’s no chance we will hit the target for 2017 based on the statute required for 2017, so we’ll have to reset it…unless there is a tremendous amount of cellulosic ethanol that comes on board.” Lankford continued, discussing the way the law was written to decrease corn ethanol use and increase cellulosic fuel, which he pointed out isn’t “possible based on production.” McCabe agreed that the cellulosic number would need to be decreased by at least 50 percent.

Later in the hearing, Lankford called cellulosic fuels “great in theory,” but acknowledged that “No one has been able to make it in a quantity that is affordable yet.” He alluded to the fact that the cellulosic industry has struggled—with the largest manufacturer of cellulosic product going bankrupt. He said: “No one can seem to crack the code to be able to make this in a way that’s actually affordable.”

Clearly, the RFS is a program that can’t be fulfilled. No wonder it has so many who see the EPA’s failures as proof that 2015 is the year for RFS reform. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, says: “The mandate is in need of significant reform and oversight.”

Maybe 2015 will be the year.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

EPA Boss Just Threatened Americans: I’m Going To Come Knocking On Your Doors

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy sent a message to those Americans who do not want to get on board with the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.

Speaking at George Washington University’s GreenGov symposium on Wednesday, the federal government’s top environmental enforcer said: “If you are selling to somebody a product, and you can assure them that that product was produced in the most environmentally responsible way, I will guarantee you that they will value that product more highly.”

She took it a step further, adding: “I can guarantee you because if they don’t, I’m going to knock on their door and I’m going to tell them why they are mistaken.”

McCarthy used much of her remarks to discuss the EPA’s new proposed regulations to cut carbon emissions (CO2) under the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide by the nation’s power industry by 2030.

“No challenge – no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 20. He believes the primary cause of man-made climate change is CO2 emissions.

The energy sources that will be impacted the most by the proposed new regulations are coal and natural gas. Currently, the United States derives 39 percent of its energy from coal, 27 percent from natural gas, 19 percent from nuclear, 6 percent from hydroelectric, and 7 percent from other renewables (mostly wind power).

The president has stated that his plans for the energy sector will necessarily cause utility rates to “skyrocket” and result in the closure of coal-fired power plants.

A study by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) notes that his administration’s EPA directives for the energy sector actually contradict themselves. On the one hand, the agency’s CPP calls for a reduction in carbon emissions, which impacts coal the most and incentivizes states to switch to natural gas as a lower emitting alternative.

On the other hand, the EPA also plans to reduce ozone levels, which would greatly impact the natural gas industry. “States with counties out of compliance with federal ozone standards will be subject to EPA-mandated pollution controls,” the Daily Caller reports.

The IER study found that areas out of compliance with federal ozone limits sit atop shale oil and gas formations that “represent half of all U.S. natural gas production and are responsible for almost all of recent production growth that is powering America’s domestic energy boom.”

Ozone - Non-compliant

The new ozone regulations mean “it’s going to be tougher and tougher and tougher to produce natural gas, if you can produce it at all,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at IER, told the Daily Caller. “And it’s not just gas, it’s oil too.”

McCarthy admitted that the conversion of power plants from coal-fired to natural gas is a pivotal method states will employ to meet the EPA’s new CO2 standards. “Natural gas has been a game changer with our ability to really move forward with pollution reductions that have been very hard to get our arms around for many decades,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation released a study last fall that found the EPA regulations the Obama administration has announced in order to achieve its climate change goals would reduce the United States’ Gross Domestic Product by $2.5 trillion by 2030. Meanwhile, employment levels would “track nearly 300,000 jobs below the no-carbon-regulation baseline in an average year, with some years seeing an employment deficit of more than 1 million jobs.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that a typical U.S. household could lose about $3400 in disposable income per year, with a combined loss for all households of $586 billion by 2030, due to Obama’s new EPA climate change regulations.

The IER report concludes that the “EPA’s regulations impose huge costs for small benefits. The agency’s ozone rule could be the single costliest regulation in U.S. history…Meanwhile, EPA’s CO2 rule will impose double-digit electricity rate hikes for residents of 43 states, but limit global warming by just 0.02 degrees Celsius. The solution is for EPA to withdraw its proposed ozone and CO2 rules.”

h/t: Washington Examiner

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth