Dec 24 2010

THIS IN FROM GOOGLE NEWS AND THE AP

EPA moving unilaterally to limit greenhouse gases

(AP) – 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for new power plants and oil refinery emission standards over the next year.

In an announcement 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.

Jackson’s announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection — another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era’s policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

On climate change, legislation in Congress putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling — a system known as “cap and trade” — stalled in the Senate earlier this year after narrowly clearing the House. Republicans assailed it as “cap and tax,” arguing that it would raise energy prices.

But the Senate in late June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules.

Jackson noted in Thursday’s statement that her agency that several state and local governments and environmental groups had sued EPA over the agency’s failure to update or publish new standards for fossil fuel plants and petroleum refineries.

Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.

“Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way,” he said. “I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

The EPA was at the center of the battle in Congress over climate change policy, especially in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases.

“While there will be attacks on (EPA’s) authority, it is important that there not be any surrender on EPA’s ability to do the job,” Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental group Earthjustice, said earlier this year.

The EPA moved against climate change on another front earlier this year, issuing the first-ever federal guidelines for reducing greenhouse emissions from industrial sources. On Nov. 10, the agency sent new guidelines to states. It suggested that dirty fuel used to power oil refineries be replaced with cleaner sources and it called for more efficient electricity and energy use with existing nuclear power plants.

In Thursday’s announcement, Jackson said that under an agreement associated with the court suit, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May and November 2012, respectively.

In this time, the agency will schedule “listening sessions” with representatives of business and local governments, ahead of the formal rule-making process.

 

Dec 23 2010

WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL VIA PATRIOT POST

“The U.S. military, already strained by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, faces transformation from the world’s most powerful fighting machine into an organization where political correctness is more important than victory. Saturday’s Senate vote cleared the final hurdle for the repeal of President Clinton’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy designed to prevent homosexual conduct in the ranks. Battle lines will now form over how the homosexual advocacy policies will be implemented. Though the repudiated lawmakers who rammed the repeal through this weekend’s session pretend they are simply latter-day Rosa Parkses seeking to end discrimination, there is no comparison. Since 2005, a mere 1 percent of Army discharges involved homosexual conduct. This issue isn’t about retaining or recruiting qualified personnel for the military. This is part of the Left’s larger societal goal of using government to force others to embrace unorthodox personal lifestyle choices. The implications are clear from a look at how the federal government treats issues of homosexuality. … Troops can look forward to so-called pride parades on military bases and awareness days for the transgendered. Everyone knows the sort of thing that might work in Greenwich Village or a San Francisco neighborhood doesn’t go over well in a fighting force drawn largely from red state America — an area whose residents Mr. Obama once derisively referred to as the type who ‘cling to guns or religion.’ That’s why implementing the New Gay Army means forcing soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to endure ‘diversity’ training. Those who don’t like it will be told to get out, as several senior military leaders have suggested already. Chaplains in particular will face the dilemma that preaching their faith will violate the new pro-homosexual code of conduct. As a result, far more are likely to leave or be thrown out of the military as a result of Mr. Obama’s policy than were ever affected by Mr. Clinton’s. It’s hard to see how that will do anything to strengthen the nation’s defenses.” –The Washington Times

Dec 21 2010

GOD REST YE MERRY CAVEMEN


It dawned on me, after I sent my last column to press, that this week was Christmas.  So I assure you that I have the column “Enslavement” in the hopper, but I thought it more appropriate to write something concerning this blessed holiday.   Generally, we list our reasons to be thankful at Thanksgiving.  That is the norm, and what normal thinking people tend to do.  There is a nasty rumor out there that I am not normal and tend to have a contrarian’s approach to life.  I am tempted to fiercely debate the matter but that would simply add one more layer to the mounting pile of evidence against me.  So here is a list of reasons I am thankful this Christmas season.

First and foremost, I am thankful for my Christian faith and the hope that it provides me.  A recent sermon from our Pastor compared a true expectant hope with the modern hope, which is filled with doubt.   In this arena that I have chosen to do battle, every victory seems to be couched with a “we’ll see” caveat.  We put the same measure of trust in our leaders that we put in the weatherman.  The history of failed promises leaves a cloud over our hope in the future.

Thankfully, the Christ of Christmas has never failed in any of his promises towards me.  The Bible assures me that His promises are “yea and amen”.  So in the hard discouraging times, when man fails and when life’s trials seem to provide no way of escape, I can have an expectant hope that God will provide that way of escape.  He always has.  So I can quote an old song.  “Why should I worry?  Why should I fret? ‘Cause I’ve got a Mansion Builder who ain’t through with me yet.”  I think that is what Liberals despise the most about Christians.  No matter the situation, no matter the heinous attack, Christians smile and fight on bolstered by an unseen hope.  “The wisdom of God is as foolishness to man.”  I am the most thankful for that foolish hope.

Secondly, I am thankful for my beautiful wife and babies.  My babies think they’re big kids now but they will always be my babies.  Even in these tough times, they can find a way, like at a Christmas pageant, to make me laugh or cry.  As for my wife, very few women as talented and beautiful as she would put up with the long stretches without funds as her husband fights for a better future for Maine…for free.  It is the “for free” that makes her shake her head but she still believes in me and stands with me.  I am definitely thankful for her and love her.

Yes, I am thankful for hope in the State of Maine.  It is a cautious hope but hope nonetheless.  We have fought against the government machine that has tried to crush independent contractors and now there is legislation in the works that will help to ease the burden.  So, let’s be thankful for that spark of hope.

Finally, I am thankful to be a cave man.  Yeah, I am!  If Conservatism makes me a caveman, then so be it.  A great big “thank you” to all you fellow cavemen and cavewomen who read this column and support us.  Sara (my cavegirl) and I wish a Blessed Merry Christmas for every cave in Piscataquis, Penobscot and Somerset Counties.  God Bless You All!!!

 

Dec 20 2010

Via Patriot Post

“[O]ne reason the Founding Fathers decided to break with England was their dismay with England’s mercantilist system, which generally required colonists to purchase manufactured goods from, or through, England rather than produce them in the colonies. Hatred for this system inspired a Virginia farmer named George Washington to try to convert his colonial farm into a self-sufficient unit — where … he could produce and consume what he wanted without trading with others, especially those in England. The Framers, who had not forgotten English mercantilism, wrote the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to create a free-trade zone among the American states. Their aim was to facilitate freedom, not restrict it. … [Judge Henry] Hudson, while carefully staying within the Supreme Court precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, correctly understood that the issue raised by Obamacare’s individual mandate … is freedom itself. ‘The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,’ Hudson wrote in his opinion. … And you thought liberals believed in freedom of choice?” –columnist Terence Jeffrey