The Obama Plan: Plenty of Change But Little Hope

As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.

Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.

Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.

In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.

Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.

In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.

The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.

Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?

If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?

The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.

Paul

Copenhagen Unwittingly Exposes Climate Fraud

The climate conference in Copenhagen is becoming a running commentary on everything I told you it would be. Ironically, thousands of arriving delegates had to stand outside in freezing rain, snow and bitterly cold temperatures while conference personnel sorted out their registration difficulties. Apparently the body of nations that wants to impose international rule over the evils of industrial societies do not possess the required brain power to realize that you cannot fit the invited 45,000 delegates in a building designed for a maximum occupancy of 12,000 people. How encouraging.

There were more headlines Monday as a contingent of poorer nations stormed out of the negotiations because their demands for money were not being adequately addressed. In somewhat of an eco-reparations scheme, they contend that since industrial nations have already produced nearly two centuries of greenhouse gas, we should pay them (handsomely) because they haven’t. While it’s true that pre-industrial and developing nations emit very little greenhouse gas, this is not proof of their ecological prowess; it is a commentary on their corrupt governance.

Many of these nations have failed to develop because their war-lord leaders steal as much as possible from their own people and that has stalled any growth of their economy or industry. Pre-conference estimates said the climate accords could eventually result in a massive redistribution of wealth from prosperous nations to the poorer nations of as much as $145 Trillion dollars. Even if that were true, it is doubtful that this money would be used to develop environment friendly infrastructure in those countries as advertised. Instead, I envision massive retrofits of the palatial dwellings of hundreds of war-lords and totalitarian leaders while the people of those nations continue to live in squalor; cooking their meager meals on fires of dried ox dung.

The talks were not quite as lucrative for those poor nations as they had expected and the commitment for that kind of transfer of wealth was just not fleshing out. I don’t blame them for being upset. I am a regular Power Ball player so I understand their disappointment. I was checking numbers on a recent ticket I had purchased and had the first three in a row. I had envisioned all the ways I was going to spend my fortune before realizing that those were the only three numbers I was going to get and my fortune would be a mere seven dollars. Of course the delegates’ walkout only lasted a couple of hours since global warming hasn’t quite reached Copenhagen and the temperatures were below freezing outside of the conference hall.

There were also massive demonstrations all around the conference area demanding immediate action to “save the planet”. Curiously, the angry mobs were carrying flags adorned with the Communist Hammer and Sickle which may have shocked Danish police, but really shouldn’t surprise anyone that regularly reads this blog. Marxists have long recognized that the climate movement is the best possible vehicles to have capitalist nations commit suicide, eventually forcing their people in to socialism to survive. Apparently, climate-gate had the same catastrophic result for die hard communist intentions that the fall of the Berlin Wall had. You see, not everyone cheered at the collapse of the Soviet Union. For these throw-backs to the days of Stalin, hysteria over global warming was supposed to mean a resurgence of Marxism while us silly westerners cut our own financial throats to save the planet.

The President plans to attend the last day of the conference and rumors say that he will offer guarantees that the United States will commit to a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020; a guarantee he has no authority to make unless he plans to scrap the Constitution and negate its requirement that international treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Apparently that is the plan, at least in spirit. According to Robert Creamer’s book, “Stand up Straight, How Progressives Can Win”, one of his strategies to advance progressive agendas is to create a crisis and then offer the people the lesser of two evils as a solution. You remember Robert Creamer, the husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)? He wrote this book while serving a prison sentence for attempting to defraud banks of $2.3 million to keep his insolvent progressive activist group afloat.

The lessons in his book have not fallen on deaf ears. Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victory. Well I suppose it’s comforting that the White House understands the concept of victory even if they have no intention of applying the discipline to foreign affairs. Now that Cap and Trade had been called dead on arrival, the President’s appointed hit man (or should I say hit person), Lisa Jackson of the EPA is issuing her ultimatum to Congress. Without Cap and Trade, warns Ms. Jackson, the EPA will exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act and begin the process of regulating CO2 production as a function of “command and control”. The threat is a clear assault by this administration against the authority of Congress and the most blatant misuse of government power to date.

The “deal” Lisa Jackson offered is that the EPA can enact regulatory control over the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses without the market based initiatives that would allow the trade of carbon credits, effectively shutting down all industry in the United States (The evil plan) or Congress can pass Cap and Trade that promises to damage business, raise energy costs for everyone, raise taxes and put millions out of work (the lesser of the two evils plan). How about door number three? If Congress can find the will (and the courage) to face this President and his radical advisors, they can pass a single page bill excluding CO2 from the Clean Air Act. Sure, that would result in law suits between environmentalists, the EPA and the Federal government but at least we could focus on getting millions of people off unemployment and putting them back to work while they sort the logistics out in the courts for the next forty years. If Congress fails to restrain the EPA, millions more will be out of work and our financial system will finally collapse.

Don’t forget the premise of Cap and Trade was meant to reduce global warming and have the added benefit of bringing America into a 21st century “green” economy. We now know through leaked e-mails and documents that “global warming” is the largest hoax ever perpetrated against the people of the world and that the latest verifiable data shows the earth is actually cooling. Besides the mitigation of global warming, we are being promised that if Cap and Trade passes that another main goal is to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil as we shift to renewable and non-polluting energy sources such as solar and wind power. Do you really think that can happen on a national level when environmental groups are filing one law suit after another effectively ceasing all major wind and solar projects now?

A recent project to install wind generating facilities in one of this nation’s desert regions, was brought to a screeching halt be one such law suit. The suit maintains that the installation would destroy the desert environment, ruin the natural beauty and affect a multitude of endangered species. It seems the only species that environmentalist are not concerned with are humans so even renewable, clean energy projects are being fought because that would allow us to continue to thrive. Desert lizards are far more deserving than we are and according to the most radical environmentalists, the loss of billions of humans would only begin to restore balance to the planet.

The reality of the situation has not deterred the White House and according to them, we are going to reduce CO2 production no matter how bad it is for the nation and how phony the science of global warming is found to be. The EPA declared its endangerment finding based on the reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports were constructed using the data prepared by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia; data that was proven to be manipulated and manufactured by those damaging e-mails that were released by an unknown whistle blower. Even though there is now concrete evidence that opposing scientific views were not only ignored but the scientists that brought them to the table were intentionally discredited; even thought there is concrete evidence that the work of the CRU and the IPCC was a calculated lie designed to provide proof of global warming by rigging the data to hide historical fluctuations in climate prior to industrial pollution, the push for climate legislation and EPA regulation continues.

It will not stop there. As if taking over the banking industry, the auto industry, the healthcare industry and now the regulation of CO2 was not enough to prove this administration is seeking to cultivate incredible power in violation of the Constitution; the Congress is now discussing amending the Clean Water Restoration Act. The CWRA currently gives the Federal government regulatory control over all navigable waters in and around the United States. The proposed amendment would expand that regulatory authority to ALL waters in and around the United States. Wetlands, streams, lakes, farm ponds, wells, aquifers; even dry washes that only carry water once every ten years would then be subject to Federal regulation.

What is going on here? The Constitution is being trashed before our eyes and the government is actively seizing control of food, water, jobs and healthcare….everything that would make it possible for the citizens to mount a successful opposition to the dismantling of our way of life. After all, how far would a citizen revolt get without money, food or water? None of this is by chance and if there were any doubts, we now know with certainty what Obama meant when he declared before Election Day, that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. I see a lot that is being transformed and if they are successful, the Constitution will be relegated to the dust bin of history and replaced with a new document that will bring all of us to our knees. If we let them do that, what will you tell your children and grandchildren when they ask you why?

Paul

What is the Stimulus Bill Actually Stimulating?

In yesterday’s article I laid out the need to force fiscal responsibility upon the Federal government. As if on cue, the government was kind enough to provide me with more examples of their excesses. But first, why hasn’t the stimulus bill brought jobs back to the private sector? The easy (and correct) answer is that government is a parasite that lives off the blood of its people. It consumes, it does not produce and therefore, will never create jobs outside of its own bloated bureaucracy.

The other truth is that government does not understand what a job is, particularly when the government is now controlled by progressive Democrats. A job is not an entitlement, it is not an offshoot of a government program and it is definitely not something that can be created in the stroke of a pen held by someone that has never worked outside of the lurid world of politics. Jobs exist for one reason and one reason only…because someone has more work than they can do themselves. Many of today’s large corporations had modest beginnings and in many cases, the original owners worked by themselves or with a small core group of people until they created a demand that they could no longer meet. To expand, they needed more money than they personally had on hand and the banks for the most part, do not lend on dreams. They lend only to those that already have the means to pay them back and the best business plans in the world are still, for the most part, the dreams of the owners.

Business owners would all love to be able to create an enterprise that will grow into something lasting and something bigger than themselves. This begins with an idea and a plan that excites investors who in turn, place their faith and money behind those ideas to set them in motion. It is an educated gamble with the hope that a small investment will yield larger results and give the investors a reward in return for risking their money on a dream. That is the essence of Capitalism.

So let’s take a close look at some of what the government invested your money in through the stimulus bill as reported in “The Hill”, a Congressional newspaper.

$54,000,000.00 for the Napa Valley Wine Train
$2,200,000.00 to help a failing golf course in San Francisco
$1,700,000.00 for fossil research in Argentina by Penn State
$400,000.00 for Malt Liquor and Marijuana Journals
$220,000.00 to study sex habits of birds and rats and the caste system and division of labor within an ant colony.
$200,000.00 for a study on how college students “hook up”
$100,000.00 for socially conscious puppet shows in the “Heart of the Beast” theater in MN (the theater is named after a Che Guevera quote)
$50,000.00 for a Facebook study

A White House spokesperson said “Even if there were a few unwise projects, it’s only a handful out of the over 50,000 projects approved to date.” With the United States $12 trillion dollars in debt, why should we accept any “unwise” projects or are these more payoffs for votes?

First I would say that it is very curious that the two projects that top the list of irresponsible waste are in or near Nancy Pelosi’s neck of the woods. The Wine Train is a tour business that uses vintage rail cars to tour the Napa Valley Wine Country. Of course we know that Nancy Pelosi owns a winery in Napa Valley. I’m sure San Francisco golf courses are important to the Congresswoman from San Francisco, even though we know golf courses use extraordinary amounts of water in an area that cries out for the responsible use of water. Oh, I forgot….the rest of us are supposed to use water responsibly not actually San Francisco, the birthplace of the American Environmental movement. They have apparently paid their dues by wearing ribbons and carrying signs to make us all aware of the problem so they are exempt from actually doing the heavy lifting.

Why are infusing $2.2 million to save a golf course while the EPA has shut the water off to farmers in the nearby San Joaquin Valley? Their land was once an abundantly fertile area that supplied 15% of America’s produce and it has been left to dry up and return to desert conditions because a two inch fish on the EPA’s protected list was getting sucked into the irritation pumps. Why hasn’t there been any stimulus money to fund a technical solution to what is in essence, a dumb fish problem that would save the forty-thousand lost jobs in the San Joaquin farms? Because our government is apparently dumber than the fish are. But maybe their not dumb….

I am a big believer in the premise that when something makes no sense at all, it’s time to follow the money. Since shutting off the water is forcing America to buy foreign produce to replace what can no longer be grown in the San Joaquin Valley, I would be curious to know which one of this administration’s friends was uniquely positioned to capitalize on the importation of foreign produce. Of course it could be something even simpler. These were mostly private farms with non-union workers. Was this punitive measure against those farms offered as a gift to the SEIU? Unfortunate, the tide of interest has turned against the farmers and all eyes are on healthcare and the climate debate so we may never know the truth.

What we do know is that seven million jobs have been lost since the recession began and over four million of those were lost since Obama was inaugurated; three million since passage of the stimulus bill. Obama does have a jobs program though…the Federal government has been recently adding new jobs at the rate of ten-thousand per month. Not only that, but the existing jobs are getting better compensation than ever before. While the nation slides deeper into recession, the number of Federal employees whose salaries are over $170,000 rose from a pre-recession total of one to over one-thousand six-hundred and ninety today. The average salary in the United States is $40,331 while the Average Federal employee salary is $71,206 and lawmakers are now seeking to eliminate the mandated caps on Federal salaries even as they debate adding salary caps to the banking industry. In fact, Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee recommended a $14,000 raise for one of his people….that is until we discovered that he was romantically involved with her. Tiger Woods would be proud of old Max!

The Congress recently voted to raise our national debt ceiling by an additional $1.8 trillion dollars to be able to continue their reckless spending spree. We already owe $12 trillion and while many experts say that debt level is unsustainable now, the White House estimates our national debt will double to $24 trillion dollars by 2019 and that is without the cost estimates for healthcare and cap and trade added in.

I can’t imagine why the Federal government does not seem to realize we are racing towards a brick wall. Foreign interests have already spoken about replacing the dollar as the currency of international trade and there is talk about downgrading our bond status from triple “A”, which has never happened before, even during our worst financial crisis’s. Maybe they all ready believe all is lost and this is a race to do as much as possible while other nations will still lend us money. They will worry about how to restructure our nation after the collapse when everyone will be busy fighting for survival instead of marching on Washington. If it all goes to hell, imagine the power these people will have then and no matter what, it is all about power…isn’t it.

Recent gains in the stock market have given some a sigh of relief but is that a real indicator that the economy is recovering? Unfortunately, the stock market is reflecting an increase in activity from casual traders and retirement portfolios. The people with real wealth like Soros and institutions with large sums of money to protect are fleeing the market and buying T-Bills even though the current rate of return is 0%. Why would they invest in bonds that offer nothing in return? That is the billionaire’s equivalent of hiding their money in their mattresses. They have such a fear over the state of the economy that they are willing to hand over their fortunes to the Federal government for safe keeping; in essence, “Don’t worry about paying interest, just make sure I get it back later.” Keep a close eye on these people…when they start bailing out of T-Bills and investing in gold and real estate, that will signal a real fear that they believe the economy will actually and irretrievably, collapse.

Paul

Copenhagen, Climate and the EPA

The global warming argument is falling apart at the seams since the disclosure of evidence that scientific groups assembling the so-called proof of global warming were manipulating data to create a false validation of their theories. The evidence also shows that they were actively engaged in discrediting scientists that even questioned the theory of global warming and sought to exclude them and their work from any discussion on the subject.

Andy Revkin of the New York Times is finding out what happens to people that haven’t drunk their weekly dose of “Klimate Kool-Aid”. Andy wrote a blog piece on the climate conference in Copenhagen that is trying to recover momentum in the wake of the University of East Anglia’s “climate-gate” scandal. He included what he thought was an amusing story about Copenhagen Prostitutes. Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming climate conference.

That did not sit well with the ladies of the evening and they are fighting back. Although I imagine that heavy breathing could be construed by global warming fanatics as creating an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the delegates, prostitution is still a legitimate and otherwise, environmentally friendly business in Copenhagen. In retaliation, the ladies announced that they would offer free “services” to anyone that brought in one of the Mayor’s postcards.

Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois wrote a scathing note to Mr. Rivken that contained more that just his disgust about some silly story about Copenhagen prostitutes. Apparently Mr. Schlesinger didn’t get the memo about the damage that is caused when scientists try to squash dissenting opinions on global warming. It reeks of a cover-up and worse, it gives the appearance that global warming proponents are on some kind of religious fundamentalist quest to limit even the discussion of global warming to only the faithful.

Michael Schlesinger wrote:

“Andy:Copenhagen prostitutes?Climate prostitutes?Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable. What are you doing and why? Michael”

Hmmm? The most worrisome part of that to me is: “The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.”

If you are not in lock step with the “Church of Climatology” they apparently excommunicate you. So is that how they maintain such tight control of the media when stories like the CRU of the University of East Anglia is concerned? The main stream media ignored that for as long as humanly possible but the word still managed to get out. We now know they already hand select data that fits their needs and dispose of the troublesome facts that don’t but if they are really attempting to control what is written and what is spoken, then all of their research is suspect.

Did you notice the remark about giving blog space to “the Pielkes”? Roger Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder but Mr. Pielke is also a skeptic of global warming. Andy Rivken obviously violated the “Big Cutoff” of Roger Pielke by giving him mention in his blog and that is why Rivken can no longer be trusted by the clergy of the Church of Climatology. Maybe in Gore’s next film we’ll be able to watch Tom Cruise grill Salinger and we’ll finally find out who ordered the “Code Red”!

Of course the Obama administration is leaving nothing to chance. When Obama took office, global warming was being called a confirmed science and he had the threat of global disaster on his side to enable him enact insanely powerful climate legislation; legislation that would give the government control over every business, enterprise and activity in this nation.

If you recall some of my earlier articles, I reported the blatant admission of socialists that the environmental movement would help them achieve their goals faster than any other strategy they could employ. People began to question my logic when climate-gate surfaced. After all, if this were actually some deeply rooted Marxist plot, then they wouldn’t let that slip away from them. Well, they probably wouldn’t if they didn’t have a “plan B”.

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator of the EPA, signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

1- Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

2- Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Isn’t it funny that the President announced that he was reneging on his agreement to place defensive missiles in Poland on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union? Now his EPA chief announces on the 68th anniversary of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that the Obama administration is going to do an end run around Congress and the Constitution to enact the most damaging parts of the “cap and tax” legislation through loopholes in the Environmental Protection act that would allow this agency to act without congressional approval if a “danger to the public” exists.

Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, threatened to use the EPA and the Supreme Court to obtain authority to ram these massive regulatory actions down our throats if the Climate Bill failed. They probably would have waited for the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor before announcing their sneak attack on America but things aren’t looking so good for them in the 2010 election and they probably feared that a Congress that was no longer full of Democrat stooges might use the power of legislation to append the EPA to close the loophole before they could do their supreme damage to our economy and our way of life.

It is clear that we are running out of time with the pace these people are taking. I just hope that 2010 isn’t too late to put the brakes on. Like Nazi Germany, I fear this is a scorched earth administration and if they can’t control it, they will burn it to the ground so no one else can out of nothing but sheer spite.

Paul