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

Friday, December 31, 2010

The Roanoke Times Perpetuates a Lie

I'm getting really steamed over this.  It was one thing for our soon-to-be former congressman, Rick Boucher, to use as an excuse for his having voted in favor of that potentially devastating cap-and-trade bill a year ago the "fact" that the Supreme Court mandated that Congress do something about greenhouse gases.  He was desperately searching for an explanation for his having sided with the whacked-out environmentalists in Washington over his constituents.  That's (almost) understandable.  He was in complete cover-his-ass mode.

But what's the Roanoke Times's excuse?  Shared stupidity?

From an editorial this morning:
Now it's the EPA's turn

The Environmental Protection Agency has a New Year's resolution: It will regulate carbon emissions. The EPA will act unilaterally because Congress failed to pass a climate bill. For that, the American people can thank a Republican Party more interested in denying the Obama administration success and rejecting science than in sound public policy.

Congress knew it faced a deadline. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Bush administration had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to regulate greenhouse gases. That law obligated the EPA to regulate harmful pollution. Because greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, they plainly qualify.

[I]t is exactly what the law and the Constitution now require. [link]
That's a lie and they know it.

The Supreme Court (in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al., 2007) ruled in a split 5-4 decision that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (and required of the EPA an explanation as to why it shouldn't), not that "the law" required regulation.

Let's be clear:

1) "The law" (?) does not require that EPA take action when it comes to greenhouse gases.

2) The Constitution does not require EPA action (and I don't even know what that means; where in the Constitution is EPA regulation stipulated?).

3) And while we're on the subject of the bizarre, the statement that "greenhouse gases contribute to climate change" is so nebulous it borders on the silly.

4) From the Supreme Court's opinion:

"If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so. [snip] The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.

"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."

In other words, the justices (ultimately) left it up to Obama's radicalized EPA to make an endangerment finding. The Court did not mandate it.

So stop with the Boucher line of obfuscation and deception.  The law requires nothing.  The EPA is simply poised - on its own - to wreck our economy in an effort to chase after another increasingly discredited environmentalist windmill.  That being "climate change."  Or whatever these miserable excuses for human beings are calling it today.

Which brings us to (5): Congress should abolish the EPA - now - before it destroys this once great country.

 - - -

To Dan Radmacher and his team of fabricators at the Times:

"A lie does not consist in the indirect position of words, but in the desire and intention, by false speaking, to deceive and injure your neighbor."
-- Jonathan Swift --

To You Folks In The Coalfields

Know who your enemies are.  Beginning with the Washington Post editorial page

"The slow death of the traditional coal plant - one likely outcome of the EPA's efforts - would be welcome."

Always remember: Liberals, like those who write for the Post, are not to be trusted when it comes to protecting your hearth and home.  You are an impediment to their future.  They will see you destroyed in order to pretend to alter the environment.

Remember that, too, when these same snakes endorse a host of Democrat candidates in the 2012 election cycle.  Beginning with James Webb.

Know your friends.  Know your enemies.

A Suggestion For The Global Warmists Out There

If you truly believe you're going to resurrect your utterly discredited movement from its current state of cardiopulmonary arrest, you'd do well to find someone who isn't a melancholy misanthrope to cheerlead the effort.

Joe Lieberman?

I'd suggest you hire Kim Kardashian for the job.

The facts then won't get in the way.

Why Does The Tea Party Exist?

It's this simple.  A quote from the Wall Street Journal on the accomplishments of Pelosi's and Reid's 111th Congress:

"Never has a Congress done so much and been so despised for it."

So much damage.  So much repair work to be done.

Who To Blame? Who To Blame?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg famously blamed Virginia for his out-of-control problem with crime.

So who's he going to blame for his failure to respond to the problem of snow-clogged streets?

Where's Michael Brown when he needs him?