People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Friday, August 14, 2009

I'm Getting Really Tired Of This

Congressman Rick Boucher is flailing. And it isn't pretty. He's making the most pathetic excuses these days for having sided with Washington environmentalists over the coal miners of Southwest Virginia, and I'm getting annoyed.

In short, Boucher is lying to us.

Here it is again. Why did he vote in favor is he an enthusiastic supporter of the cap-and-trade legislation that is - by every expert's estimation - going to decimate the coal fields?

The EPA made him do it.

Because the Supreme Court made the EPA do it.

From yesterday's Bristol Herald Courier (see "Boucher: Coal profits supersede environmental concerns"):

Bristol, Va. – In a speech to the Eastern Coal Council Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher vowed to fight for industry on two controversialenvironmental measures.

Boucher, D-9th, said he will work to reinstate issuance of Nationwide 21 permits, which allowed a more streamlined permitting process for surface mining, and will continue to work toward a greenhouse gas bill more favorable to the coal industry and coal-fired utilities.

Boucher also detailed why he has actively supported the cap-and-trade bill being crafted in Congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

He said a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively ended the climate change debate and Congress does not have the political will to override the ruling – meaning regulation in some form is inevitable. His role, therefore, has been to engage in the process in hopes of creating a more industry-friendly bill, he said.

He was, in other words, powerless.

Here's Boucher attempting to foist upon us the same ruse earlier in the year (see "Boucher: Cap and trade deal preserves coal jobs" in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph):

“The fact is that we will inevitably have controls on greenhouse gases. Refraining from controlling is no longer an option. The Supreme Court ended the debate two years ago when it held that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate green gas [sic] unless the Congress regulates first." [my emphasis]
Before he became a two-faced, lying politician, Rick Boucher was a lawyer. That would lead one to believe that he knows how to read case law.

The Supreme Court did not hold that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

(Nor did the Supreme Court end the debate over the issue of global warming, but we'll go there another day.)

What did the Supreme Court do?

The Boston Globe, April 2, 2007:

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks.

The justices' 5-4 decision did not go as far as to require the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. Rather, the court directed the agency to take a new look at the gases. [my emphasis]
The Associated Press, April 2, 2007:

Washington — The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. [my emphasis]

NPR, April 2, 2007:
The Supreme Court stood up for the environment in two major court rulings Monday. One gives the Environmental Protection Agency the go-ahead to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The second ruling sends ...

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency does, in fact, have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate. But Heinzerling says for the EPA to avoid regulating, it would have to show that these emissions don't endanger public health or welfare. [my emphasis]

"The ruling doesn't necessarily mean the EPA will have to impose new regulations."

And here's the relevant passage from the actual Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA (majority opinion written by Justice Stevens):
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. [my emphasis]
Contrary to that which Congressman Rick Boucher would have you believe, the Supreme Court did not require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. What it did was recognize the fact that the EPA had the authority to do so and called upon the EPA to act within its statutory authority, or explain to the Court why it wouldn't.

Here's what you need to know about all this: Not only did the EPA find itself having to alter its stance with regard to global warming, CO2, etc., but Congress - Boucher - was presented with the opportunity to change the federal regulations pertaining thereto.

Rick Boucher could have acted in the best interests of Virginia's coal miners and sought that change in regulation.

Or Rick Boucher could have gone along with the pack, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "The Supreme Court and EPA made me do it."

Rick Boucher took the cowardly approach, saying "Refraining from controlling is no longer an option." It was very much an option.

This from our elected representative in this our democratic Republic.

This from a man who was given that controlling authority by the people of Southwest Virginia on Election Day, November 4, 2008. By the Constitution of the United States of America.

This from a man who would rather run and hide. And who ran and hid.

This from a man who prefers making excuses to standing up to his powerful environmentalist friends in Washington.

This from a man who has never bucked his party in his life.

This from a loser.

This from Rick Boucher, United States Representative, 9th Congressional District, Virginia.

Global Warmi ... er, Climate Change!

You can tell why the morons who set the parameters for the global warming debate decided to alter it to be a "climate change" debate. It allowed them to make laughingly preposterous statements like this:
Environmental problems caused and exacerbated by climate change are currently responsible for an estimated 50 million refugees worldwide (UNEP/GRID-Arendal). That number is expected to multiply in the coming decades, as droughts, water shortages and natural disasters are made increasingly severe by global warming. According to Oxford Professor Norman Myers, the number of people uprooted due to climate change will reach close to 200 million by 2050 (Myers 1995). Environmentally induced forced migration as a major problem has long been acknowledged by scholars, NGOs and the UN, but has yet to make the agendas of nation states. A change may be underway, however, with the realization that the prospect of mass migration is not only a humanitarian issue but a matter of national security.
What this genius has done (is he that smart or that stupid; you decide) is conflate two issues. He's taken "environmental problems," which are very real (resulting in drought, flooding, extreme temperatures), and "climate change," which means global warming, and is then able to attribute mass migrations (though the 50 million figure is also preposterous) of human beings who routinely become refugees fleeing floods and famine doing so because the planet has heated up an estimated 0.2° C.

With the number of people fleeing climate change reaching 200 million in the not too distant future.

See why the favored term changed from global warming to climate change? "Climate" actually happens.

Don't laugh too loudly though. The man who made that prediction holds a PhD.

From Berkeley.

On second thought, raucous laughter is appropriate.

The Stimulus Is Working

If its intent was to put every American worker out of a job, that is:

New Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly to 558,000

Retail Sales Drop 0.1 Percent in July

Number of U.S. Foreclosures Rise 7 Percent, Setting New Record in July

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is focusing his efforts on changing the climate ...

Quote of the Day

From Charles Krauthammer:

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."

Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

"The Great 'Prevention' Myth," Washington Post, August 14, 2009

In Remembrance

The best there ever was, together on stage:

Atkins died in 2001.

Les Paul passed away yesterday.

"Pay attention and you will see how genius creates a legend."
-- "Shakespeare in Love" --

'Return With Me To Yesteryear'

Remember Hillary's "right-wing conspiracy"?

It's back.

See New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's "Republican Death Trip."

Only it's now "the right-wing media complex."

Just as paranoid. Just as misguided. Just as silly.

Introducing our next Secretary of State ...

God Is Good

Toomey Leads Specter by 12 Points

Headline Of The Day

From Hot Air:

Video: Guy who won’t listen to answers grills woman who won’t listen to questions

It's about a dim-witted Democrat and a Congresswoman from Texas.

Count Me Among The 'Fishy'

I sent the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office an email this morning in which I snitched on an American who created one of those "fishy" weblog posts. I did it in response to this call for everyone to FLAG YOURSELF.

I flagged myself:
Dear Linda Douglass:

This, by your definition, is a fishy blog post. It appears on the weblog From On High:

ObamaCare On The Ropes


Jerry Fuhrman
weblog editor-in-chief, From On High

P.S. I have a boatload of other entries on the same subject posted to the blog. Contact me for details.
Guess this puts me on Obama's enemies list. I'm waiting for the knock on the door in dead of night ...

Seems Only Fair

A question:

If we blamed George Bush for the actions and inactions that did and did not take place after Hurricane Katrina struck, do we blame Barack Obama for this?

Air traffic controller suspended, was chatting on phone with girlfriend during Hudson River crash

Let the hair-splitting begin.

The Dreaded Enemy

If Paula held a certain animus toward the Philadephia Eagles before (she wears green and gold every day the Packers play in season), she certainly has stepped it up a notch now:

In a Surprise, Vick Signs With the Eagles

Such words coming out of a lady's mouth.

She was hoping for castration instead.

My my my my my.