EPA imposes cap and trade


#1

While Obama could not get his agenda through congress he has bypassed them by having the various agencies impose his agenda on America.

Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.
In a statement posted on the agency’s website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.
“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans,” Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.
President Barack Obama had said two days after the midterm elections that he was disappointed Congress hadn’t acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling that other options were under consideration.

» EPA Moves to Unilaterally Impose Carbon Caps - Big Government

This will not only increase costs but will add to the jobless problems. As Obama tells us that the economy is picking up from what ever golf course he is on the truth is far different.


#2

Maybe we can get a twofer out of this. Yank back hard on both the FCC and the EPA at the same time. Not holding my breath, but it would be nice to knock the legs out from both places.


#3

[quote=“tperkins2009, post:2, topic:28698”]
Maybe we can get a twofer out of this. Yank back hard on both the FCC and the EPA at the same time. Not holding my breath, but it would be nice to knock the legs out from both places.
[/quote]I agree.


#4

Appoint me your Benevolent Dictator for just one day, and I will eliminate every NGO. Anybody whining about the loss of a job will be sent to protect our borders - whether a member of any NGO or not.

What fractures me is how they can STILL get away with using ‘climate change’ as an excuse when that hoax was exposed how long ago???
On top of that, whatever happened to the Act that was signed into law - IIRC, under Pres. Bush - that insisted that the EPA use ‘sound science’? Or did that only address pesticide use?


#5

I don’t think they understand the term “Sound Science.”


#6

Yank back hard on both the FCC and the EPA at the same time

They could make the choice, either cut Medicare or FCC & EPA to help deficit. :biggrin:

.


#7

More than likely they think it’s something that comes out of a speaker in an ipod or something. :rolleyes:


#8

It can’t pass by Congress okaying, so just make a rule!
And people wonder why cussing happens. :banghead: :angry26:


#9

The EPA is good but watermelons have abused it for far too long.


#10

The EPA is evil.
The EPA has no redeeming qualities.
The EPA should be de-funded and abolished tomorrow.
The EPA is responsible for more destruction of private property rights and economic Liberty than any other creation of this apostate government.

Only the Federal Department of Education comes close in perpetuating evil on the American people, mainly because they indoctrinate students into thinking the EPA is “good”.


#11

I was going to say “I’m biased because I like Nixon” but decided against it. I guess I should have put that part in.

Oh, I also see you’re 1 post away from 4000. May your reply to me be it.


#12

Yeah, Nixon gave us both the EPA and the Department Of Education.

I am not a Nixon fan even though I think Watergate was a big bunch of nothing.

I did not notice the post count was up that high, I am glad they don’t count words typed or I might be accused of doing nothing but this!


#13

Well I wasn’t either until I read this: The American Spectator : Deep Throat and Genocide

This is the bit I like the most.

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW’s, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel’s life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Look past Watergate, and in your case also EPA, you see he was a very good man that did a lot of good stuff.


#14

Nixon caved to the Liberals and pulled us out of Vietnam when we had it won, causing one of the greatest massacres in the regions history (much of it caught on camera) and rendering over a decade of efforts meaningless. He literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The “Open relations in China” had more to do with China rewarding Nixon for allowing Communism to be victorious in Vietnam than any great achievement of diplomacy. The price was way too high for what we gleaned.

I have no idea what this author means by “brought home the P.O.W’s”, the lackluster effort by the U.S. to get our soldiers back is legendary. To this day organizations like POW/MIA are trying to get government support to get our soldiers (or their bodies in many cases now) back from that theater.

Nixon gave us the Satanic E.P.A.

Nixon gave us the Satanic Federal Dept. Of Education.

Nixon gave us the “almost as Satanic” O.S.H.A.

Nixon’s “Nuclear weapons reduction treaties” were a failure that began a philosophy (continued by Carter) that made it necessary for Reagan to basically build our military from scratch to end the cold war. “Weapons Treaties” are stupid Liberal ideas, they never work and just give our enemies an opportunity to build strength.

Nixon instituted unconstitutional price controls on the free market.

Nixon was probably the most successful hard left Liberal President with the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson in terms of long term damage.
Almost all of the economic destruction we are experiencing today (as well as the price we are paying from a destroyed education system) can be traced to government abuses by agencies created by Nixon.

Nixon did privatize the Post Office but he made no effort remove the Constitutional mandate granting them the monopoly so I don’t know how much of a victory that was.

On balance I think he was a terrible President. I can see how Liberals would look back on his record and drool but his complete disrespect for the concept of a free market and personal responsibility make him an enemy of mine.

To answer the authors question of “does anyone remember what he did that was so bad?”

Yes, I live this nightmare every day.


#15

:coffee_spray: So that’s where they got the funding for the Bionic Watermelon…


#16

Yes, not everything he did was good, but he did do some good. He did not pull out of Vietnam to appease the Liberals. He pulled out because we won the war after we did heavy bombing to North Vietnam with Operation Linebacker 2. That’s not very Liberal. Doing massive 24/7 bombing to bring a nation it its knees.

He also saved Israel from Muslim genocide. I think that speaks a lot about him.

Ben’s point was that the vindictiveness of the liberals caused a massive, devastating domino effect. And it didn’t matter that he implemented stuff that liberals would praise, he still was hated because he was Republican and got Alger Hiss.


#17

[quote=“Susanna, post:5, topic:28698”]
I don’t think they understand the term “Sound Science.”
[/quote]I saw another article today which was saying the same as my article . Obama is using agencies to circumvent congress and the constitution.


#18

I am aware of no lasting or even significant “good” that came from the Nixon administration.

You are wrong on both counts.

  1. The war was not yet “won” as evidenced by the total slaughter and Communist victory the moment we left.

  2. 24/7 Bombing is EXACTLY what a Liberal would do. Wars are concluded by ground troops, Liberals always bail too soon. The bombing definitely loosened things up and laid the ground work to starve the rest out but having our troops flee like cowards in an instant so the remaining Communist’s could slaughter our allies in the wake and leave the country to the Communist’s is not “victory” by any sane definition.

We still are suffering from the scar of that “loss”. One of many scars left by the Nixon Administration.

Most American Presidents have been quite supportive of Israel until Obama. This is certainly not a bad thing with Nixon but it hardly redeems a Presidency that is still crushing our nation 38 years later. A genuine Conservative would have supported our Israeli allies and not left a pile of unconstitutional agencies to destroy our education, our property rights and our economy.

I agree with this, Watergate was a bunch of nothing that Nixon made worse.

But it was an AWFUL Presidency as evidenced by nearly 4 decades of destruction that is still GAINING STEAM today.

Did you read what this thread is about?
Thanks to Nixon our BREATH is now regulated, in spite of the ELECTED UNITED STATES CONGRESS refusing to do so.

Nixon was a RINO’s dream and no friend to the U.S. Constitution or those who honor it and who desire to conserve it.


#19

Negative. The Bill of Wrongs wasn’t supportive. Carter certainly isn’t now, and I know he wasn’t as supportive as either Nixon or Reagan, or G.W.B. Nixon supported them massively in time of war when they would have lost, simply because the Soviets were supplying Egypt big-time. In fact, no President from the founding of modern Israel (Truman) to Kennedy (inclusive; and what support LBJ gave them was near the end of his first term; I suspect he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get votes) supported Israel in any meaningful way.


#20

I said “most Presidents”

Carter and Clinton were not as strong as some but during their Administrations they were not even close to the level of adversity that Obama has expressed toward ALL of our allies, especially Israel.

In Clinton’s case he was following the desire to approach the peace process from an appeasement concept toward the Palestinians that Rabin also believed in and desired to try.

Like I said, Nixon would require far more credentials than this to be considered a good President.