Tag: Environmental Protection Agency

Categories
Quick Analysis

WIll the EPA power grab be stopped?

With a new Republican majority in the Senate, will the Environmental Protection Agency’s unprecedented power grab, which some believe seeks to give the federal government massive new powers by exercising control over every puddle in America, finally be halted?

Last September, the House of Representatives moved to enact legislation that would prevent the agency from re-writing the Clean Water Act to grant Washington extraordinary and unjustifiable powers. Many in Congress were angered not only at the extent of the action but also that it was done without going through the legislative process. The measure didn’t stand a chance at becoming a law since the Democrat-controlled Senate road-blocked it.

Keep in mind to conduct the exercise only once every day. viagra purchase uk Do not mix KAMAGRA with viagra pills from canada alcohol or recreational drugs which may worsen the situation. But the problem comes when people get cheap cialis furious with some inferior quality products which worsen their condition. Standard drug manufacturers make generic version next page viagra without prescription canada of every drug so that individuals can buy generic drugs and save money while taking quality medicine. The EPA action flied in the face not only of the rights of Congress, but also of past court decisions. In the 2001Supreme Court decision in the case  of SWANCC vs. Army Corps of Engineers, “Chief Justice Rehnquist said that ‘[t]he term ‘navigable’ has…the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the Clean Water Act: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.”

Farmers, as well as both large and small property owners across America have been enraged at draconian EPA actions seeking to exercise control over land with water features that had absolutely no relation to the intentions of the Clean Water Act.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Undue Influence at the EPA

Among the most important stories not covered by the major media in 2014 was the scathing report by the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public works Minority Staff Report concerning undue influence within the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The executive summary of the report is reproduced here:

In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama famously chided the Supreme

Court for its recent campaign finance decision by proclaiming, “With all due deference to the

separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for

special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”

 

In another speech he further lamented, “There aren’t a lot of functioning democracies around the

world that work this way where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bankrolling

whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed. What it means is ordinary

Americans are shut out of the process.”

 

These statements are remarkable for their blatant hypocrisy and obfuscation of the fact

that the President and his cadre of wealthy liberal allies and donors embrace the very tactics he

publically scorned. In reality, an elite group of left wing millionaires and billionaires, which this

report refers to as the “Billionaire’s Club,” who directs and controls the far-left environmental

movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even more unsettling, a dominant organization in this

movement is Sea Change Foundation, a private California foundation, which relies on funding

from a foreign company with undisclosed donors. In turn, Sea Change funnels tens of millions

of dollars to other large but discreet foundations and prominent environmental activists who

strive to control both policy and politics.

 

This report examines in detail the mechanisms and methods of a far-left environmental

machine that has been erected around a small group of powerful and active millionaires and

billionaires who exert tremendous sway over a colossal effort. Although startling in its findings,

the report covers only a small fraction of the amount of money that is being secreted and moved

around. It would be virtually impossible to examine this system completely given the enormity

of this carefully coordinated effort and the lack of transparency surrounding it.

 

The failure to openly acknowledge this force and the silence of the media with whom

they coordinate further emphasize the fact that until today, the Billionaire’s Club operated in

relative obscurity hidden under the guise of “philanthropy.” The scheme to keep their efforts

hidden and far removed from the political stage is deliberate, meticulous, and intended to

mislead the public. While it is uncertain why they operate in the shadows and what they are

hiding, what is clear is that these individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid

public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund.

The report attempts to decipher the patterns of “charitable giving.” Often the wealthiest

foundations donate large sums to intermediaries – sometimes a pass through and sometimes a

fiscal sponsor. The intermediary then funnels the money to other 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)

organizations that the original foundation might also directly support. The report offers theories

that could explain this bizarre behavior, but at its core, the Billionaire’s Club is not, and

seemingly does not, want to be transparent about the groups they fund and how much they are

supporting them.

In advancing their cause, these wealthy liberals fully exploit the benefits of a generous

tax code meant to promote genuine philanthropy and charitable acts, amazingly with little

apparent Internal Revenue Service scrutiny. Instead of furthering a noble purpose, their tax

deductible contributions secretly flow to a select group of left wing activists who are complicit

and eager to participate in the fee-for-service arrangement to promote shared political goals.

Moreover, the financial arrangement provides significant insulation to these wealthy elite from

the incidental damage they do to the U.S. economy and average Americans.

Through these arrangements, the Billionaire’s Club gains access to a close knit network

of likeminded funders, environmental activists, and government bureaucrats who specialize in

manufacturing phony “grassroots” movements and in promoting bogus propaganda disguised as

science and news to spread an anti-fossil energy message to the unknowing public. Not only is

the system incredibly sophisticated, but the Club’s attorneys and accountants have mastered the

loopholes and gray areas in the tax code, which enable them to obtain a full tax benefit, even

when the recipient of the grant is not recognized as a public charity, and even if the money

indirectly and impermissibly funds political activities.

In order to understand how the Billionaire’s Club colludes with the far-left

environmental activists and government officials, the report articulates the fundamental

framework that governs these relationships. Essentially, the far-left environmental machine is

comprised of hundreds of nonprofit organizations. Each entity is set up according to its

designated purpose and is either a private foundation or a public charity, depending on where the

cog fits in this well-designed wheel.

The facilitators – both organizations and individuals who bring together the private

foundations and the activists – are a key component of the movement’s success. The report

identifies three organizations that serve prominent roles as facilitators: the Environmental

Grantmakers Association, the Democracy Alliance, and the Divest/Invest movement. There is

also a narrow set of individuals whose careers are part of the fabric of the far-left environmental

movement and who serve as coordinators and intermediaries between the Billionaire’s Club and

the activist groups.

The ultimate recipients of donations from the Billionaire’s Club work in tandem with

wealthy donors to maximize the value of their tax deductible donations and leverage their

combined resources to influence elections and policy outcomes. Often, they lobby on behalf of

the EPA and advance policy positions important to the agency, which is statutorily prohibited

from lobbying on its own behalf. But most importantly, they serve as the face of the

environmental movement and present themselves as non-partisan benevolent charities to a public

not aware of the secretive backroom deals and transfers.

The Billionaire’s Club achieves many of its successes through the “capture” of key

employees at EPA. These “successes” are often at the expense of farmers, miners, roughnecks,

small businesses, and families. This report proves that the Obama EPA has been deliberately

staffed at the highest levels with far-left environmental activists who have worked hand-in-glove

with their former colleagues. The green-revolving door at EPA has become a valuable asset for

the far-left and their wealthy donors. In addition to providing insider access to important policy

decisions, it appears activists now at EPA also funnel government money through grants to their

former employers and colleagues. The report tracks the amount of government aid doled out to

activist groups and details a troubling disregard for ethics by certain high powered officials.

The report further describes what the Billionaire’s Club is purchasing with their fortunes.

It reveals that activists are skilled at creating and pushing out propaganda disguised as science

and news. For example, both the Park Foundation and the Schmidt Family Foundation have

financed questionable scientists to produce anti-fracking research, which the Huffington Post,

Mother Jones, and Climate Desk – all grant recipients themselves – eagerly report on.

The Billionaire’s Club has also perfected the craft of assembling and funding fake

grassroots movements to assist in ballot measures and other state initiatives. The efforts in New

York and Colorado to ban fracking are prime examples. The report explains how these faux

grassroots efforts are actually funded by foundations outside the states they seek to influence.

All these groups are similarly utilizing their platform to attack jobs, economic development, and

infrastructure projects across the country.

The Energy Foundation is a quintessential example of a pass through frequently

employed by the Billionaire’s Club. Energy Foundation receives money from several key

foundations and redirects it to activists. In doing so, they are providing two services: distance

between the donor and the activist, and enhancing the clout of the donors as their individual

influence is maximized by pooling resources. One of the major funders of the Energy

Foundation is Sea Change, which has gone to great lengths to hide the source of its money. This

is especially concerning in light of recent revelations that environmental activists do not appear

to be morally conflicted over where their money comes from – so long as it supports their goals.

The Billionaire’s Club is also adept at converting charitable donations into political

outcomes by taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code. Numerous examples raise questions

as to whether the charitable donations are indirectly supporting political activity. For example,

in many cases they fund a 501(c)(3), like the Energy Foundation or the League of Conservation

Voters, which then transfers large sums to an affiliated 501(c)(4), which can engage in political

activity. The affiliated groups often share office space, staff, and even board members. In the

case of the 501(c)(4) Green Tech Action Fund, which received donations from the Energy

Foundation, and in turn, donated funds to 501(c)(4) far-left environmental activist organizations.

The evidence provided in this report highlights the lengths the far-left environmental

movement goes to hide sources of funding and to disguise their actions – bought and paid for by

millionaires and billionaires – as charitable acts in service of their fellow man. This report

outlines a sampling of the individuals, foundations, and practices that are active in our political

system today, shedding light on just a fraction of the activities of the far-left environmental

machine that undermines American free enterprise and resource security.

FINDINGS:

  • The “Billionaire’s Club,” an exclusive group of wealthy individuals, directs the far-left

An individual needs to chew the tablet for about 10 minutes and then allow its ingredient to be blended in the bloodstream. cheapest viagra Visit This Link It is easy to use pumping method for find out here cialis 5 mg ED issue. The court also said that it would by online levitra no means be a problem with the blood vessels is also one of the reasons. Always keep in mind that unhealthy practice like alcohol sipping, smoking and incorporating heavy meal can produce obstacles in https://unica-web.com/archive/2004/films_for_the_unica_2004_competition.html viagra properien therapy and may slow down its effects as it carries an amazing ingredient in it which is Tadalafil.
environmental movement. The members of this elite liberal club funnel their fortunes

through private foundations to execute their personal political agenda, which is centered

around restricting the use of fossil fuels in the United States.

  • The Billionaire’s Club has established a dozen prominent private foundations with huge

sums of money at their disposal to spend on environmental causes.

  • Members of the Billionaire’s Club also donate directly to 501(c)(3) public charities.

Generally, the public charity is considered the preferred status under the tax code, based

on the greater tax benefits and protections on donor disclosures.

  • Public charities attempt to provide the maximum amount of control to their donors

through fiscal sponsorships, which are a legally suspect innovation unique to the left,

whereby the charity actually sells its nonprofit status to a group for a fee.

  • Nearly all of the public charities discussed in this report have an affiliated 501(c)(4) that

engages in activities designed to influence elections and have no restrictions on their

lobbying efforts. The funding of a 501(c)(4) by a 501(c)(3) affiliates is provocative in

light of the legal restrictions on public charities from participating in political

campaigning, either directly or indirectly, while permitting a 501(c)(4) to significantly

engage in campaign activities.

  • Members of the Billionaire’s Club put a premium on access to the complex

environmental infrastructure that has evolved to leverage substantial assets towards

achieving defined policy outcomes.

  • Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is a place where wealthy donors meet

and coordinate the distribution of grants to advance the environmental movement. EGA

encourages the use of prescriptive grantmaking. It is a secretive organization, refusing to

disclose their membership list to Congress.

  • Democracy Alliance (DA), a facilitator for wealthy donors seeking to advance a broader

far-left agenda, does not disclose the details of any transaction it facilitates, and its

members and donor-recipients cannot speak publically about the organization. (Pg. 18)

  • Environmental activist groups are well aligned with the greater far-left agenda. One of

DA’s acclaimed successes in the last year includes President Obama’s executive actions

on climate change. (Pg. 20)

  • Many far-left environmental foundations and groups have pledged to divest in fossil fuels

and invest in renewable projects as well as “philanthropy.” (Pg. 22)

iv• There is a narrow set of individuals whose careers are part of the fabric of the far-left

environmental movement. These individuals exercise outsized influence regarding the

distribution of funds. (Pg. 23)

  • Public charity activist groups propagate the false notion that they are independent,

citizen-funded groups working altruistically. In reality, they work in tandem with

wealthy donors to maximize the value of the donors’ tax deductible donations and

leverage their combined resources to influence elections and policy outcomes, with a

focus on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

  • Far-left environmental activists, while benefiting from nonprofit status, essentially sell a

product to wealthy foundations who are seeking to drive policy and political outcomes.

  • The Obama Administration has installed an audacious green-revolving door among

senior officials at EPA, which has become a valuable asset for the environmental

movement and its wealthy donors.

  • In one example, senior EPA officials planned to use Michelle DePass’s position on the

Board of Directors of EGA, her eminent employment at EPA, and her relationship with

former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, to enhance her influence with EGA.

  • Former far-left environmentalists working at EPA funnel government money through

grants to their former employers and colleagues, often contributing to the bottom line of

environmental activist groups.

  • Under President Obama, EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants

to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and

Environmental Defense Fund – two key activists groups with significant ties to senior

EPA officials – have collected more than $1 million in funding each.

  • EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck appears to be inappropriately and personally

involved in the allocation of EPA grants to favored groups. Enck is also the subject of an

inquiry led by the EPA Office of Inspector General.

  • EPA also gives grants to lesser-known extreme groups. For example, the Louisiana

Bucket Brigade received hundreds of thousands of grants under former Administrator

Lisa Jackson despite challenges by state regulators over the use of such grants.

  • Some of the most valued services activists provide the Billionaire’s Club includes

promulgation of propaganda, which creates an artificial echo chamber; appearance of a

faux grassroots movement; access to nimble and transient groups under fiscal

sponsorship arrangements; distance/anonymity between donations made by well-known

donors and activities of risky activist groups; and above all – the ability to leverage tens

of millions of dollars in questionable foreign funding.

  • Foundations finance research to justify desired predetermined policy outcome. The

research is then reported on by a news outlet, oftentimes one that is also supported by the

same foundation, in an effort to increase visibility. In one example, a story reporting on a

Park Foundation-supported anti-fracking study was reproduced by a Park-funded news

organization through a Park-funded media collaboration where it was then further

disseminated on Twitter by the maker of Park-backed anti-fracking movies.

  • Another service provided to the Billionaire’s Club is the manufacturing of an artificial

grassroots movement where it is not the citizen’s interest that drives the movement;

rather, it is part of a well-funded national strategy.

  • In New York and Colorado, a pseudo grassroots effort to attack hydraulic fracturing has

germinated from massive amounts of funding by the NY-based Park Foundation, as well

as CA-based Schmidt Family Foundation and Tides Foundation

  • The same California and New York-based foundations behind the New York antifracking

efforts have shifted to Colorado through two coalitions – Local Control

Colorado and Frack Free Colorado.

  • Bold Nebraska is another example of faux grassroots where a purportedly local

organization is, in fact, an arm of the Billionaire’s Club. It is nothing more than a shield

for wealthy and distant non-Nebraskan interests who seek to advance a political agenda

without drawing attention to the fact that they, too, are outsiders with little connection to

the state.

  • The Energy Foundation is a pass through public charity utilized by the most powerful

EGA members to create the appearance of a more diversified base of support, to shield

them from accountability, and to leverage limited resources by hiring dedicated

energy/environment staff to handle strategic giving.

  • The Energy Foundation is the largest recipient of grants from the foreign-funded Sea

Change Foundation; yet, it appears the Energy Foundation attempts to hide donations

from Sea Change, as it is not listed as one of Energy Foundation’s partners.

  • The circumstances surrounding the flow of money from 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups,

and the likelihood of lax oversight, raises questions as to whether 501(c)(3) nonprofit

foundations and charities are indirectly funding political activities.

  • 501(c)(4) Green Tech Action Fund receives millions of dollars from green 501(c)(3)

organizations, then distributes the funds to other 501(c)(4) groups that donate to political

campaigns.

  • Many of the large environmental organizations form both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)

nonprofits that are publically advertised as separate and independent entities. In reality,

they are closely associated groups that transfer money from the Billionaire’s Club to

nonprofits, and eventually into political campaigns.

vi• Between 2010 and 2012, Tides Foundation gave over $10 million to Tides Center, and

Tides Center gave over $39 million to Tides Foundation. It is unclear what purpose the

transfer of funds between these two organizations serves, other than obscuring the money

trail.

  • Tides Center is a fiscal sponsor to over 200 groups, which are subject to Tides Center’s

oversight and direction in important aspects that include forming a governing board,

managing payroll, and monitoring risk.

  • The New York-based Sustainable Markets Foundation is also a significant fiscal sponsor

and receives vast sums from the Billionaire’s Club. It only exists on paper and has zero

public presence – no website, no Facebook page, no Twitter account, nothing.

  • The Billionaire’s Club knowingly collaborates with questionable offshore funders to

maximize support for the far-left environmental movement.

  • The little information available on Sea Change is limited to a review of its IRS Form-990

for 2010 and 2011 as its 2012 form is not public, and a sparsely worded website – listing

solely the logo and a three-sentence mission statement.

  • Klein Ltd., an overseas company contributing tens of millions to organizations dedicated

to abolishing the use of affordable fossil fuels through a U.S. private foundation is highly

problematic. This is only compounded by the fact that it is deliberately and completely

lacking in transparency – having no website and withholding its funders.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The EPA’s Regulatory Tidal Wave

In March, the Congressional Research Service issued a report entitled “EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or Right on Track.”

“Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution controlstatutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules.The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th and 113th Congresses, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Particular attention has been paid to the Clean Air Act; congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA…

“EPA states that critics’ focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs. It maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs, as well. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes.”
It also has ample evidence viagra on line to show that environmental scavengers strip our minds and bodies of their youthful vigor. Before taking the medication, there are certain safety measures which have to be followed when taking Kamagra Oral Jelly. cheapest tadalafil If goals were enough, you would not have the same effect on women as it does on men, sneaking a few sex enhancement http://secretworldchronicle.com/2019/05/ tadalafil cialis pills for women made up of extracts from natural sources can help the addicted to avail an easy escape from this health incapability. A large number secretworldchronicle.com discount cialis of men around the world.
Other studies, including one by CNS news  document the extraordinary number (2,827) and length (24,915 pages) of EPA final regulations.

Today, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government reviews the most onerous of the EPA’s actions, its planned implementation of the President’s Carbon Emissions program.

Categories
NY Analysis

The President’s Executive Action on Carbon Emissions

The June roll out of the White House executive action to cut power plant emissions has been met by support from environmental and kindred political groups. The nation’s 600 Coal-fired plants are the biggest target. If fully enacted, according to a Bloomberg report, coal’s share of energy generation would be reduced from 40% to 14%. The executive action is a follow-up to the White House’s climate change strategy released in June 2013, which called for power plant emissions controls, electrical grid upgrades, carbon capture technology development, periodic reviews of energy matters, and methane and hydrofluorocarbon reductions.

The executive action follows a 2009 pledge by President Obama to cut domestic greenhouse gas by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and over 80% by mid-century. It would institute the controversial “cap and trade” concept, which requires emissions producers to obtain “carbon permits” to operate.

The executive action was based on findings summarized in the Environmental Protection Agency’s study, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States,” which   concluded that human-caused climate change has already occurred and is producing harmful effects on the environment. Critics maintain the study ignored contrary evidence.

DETAILS

Carbonbrief.org describes the executive action succinctly:

“The plan aims to cut the emissions of the US power sector 30 per cent on 2005 levels over the next sixteen years. It is open for comment for 120 days and the EPA aims to have final rules in force by June 2015.

“Each state in the US will be set their own target for emissions per megawatt hour of electricity produced. States will have until 30 June 2016 to submit plans explaining how they will meet this target. The EPA says it might allow states to plead for up to two years’ extra time.

“The proposal covers emissions from 1,600 existing coal and gas-fired power stations across the US. Regulations limiting emissions from new power stations are already in the pipeline…There is no legal precedent for it to use the Clean Air Act in this way. The Ohio attorney general has pledged to challenge the EPA’s plans. Legal opinions differ  on the EPA’s authority.”

The Institute for 21st Century Energy  notes that “fossil-fuel fired power stations comprise almost 76% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States.”

CAN THE EPA DO THIS?

The EPA bases its authority to engage in this action by virtue of presidential executive action, using the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d). There is significant controversy over the constitutionality of the move.  Mr. Obama failed to win Congressional approval for climate change legislation in his first term, and opponents will claim with substantial validity that he lacks the authority to enact his current program without Congressional approval.

In its June 23 decision in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Supreme Court gave a mixed ruling to the legality of the measure.  The Scotus blog summarized the decision:

The Clean Air Act either compels nor permits the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt an interpretation of the Clean Air Act requiring a stationary source of pollution to obtain a ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’ or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emission. However, EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases.”

Opposition

The President’s program has encountered broad based opposition from scientific, legal, financial, industrial, and consumer interests. Manufacturers and oil refineries would also be hit hard.  Consumers would face significant price increases. Critics maintain that the technology to comply with the new regulations remains unproven.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see below) believes that the program, despite the heavy cost, will produce only a 1.8% reduction in emissions.

International strategic implications would be broad.  The U.S. has a vast supply of coal, (Kentucky, for example, fills almost all of its energy needs from coal) and essentially making it unaffordable would render the U.S. and its allies more dependent on international energy supply producers, such as Russia and middle eastern nations, that are hostile to the west.

Nor are international implications being considered by. Moscow funds its vast military buildup through its energy sales; taking U.S. coal off line will increase the Kremlin’s profits and provide greater assets to spend on its already massive armed forces. Europe will be more dependent than ever on Putin.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis reports that the program would: “Lower U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion on average every year through 2030; Lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030; Force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030; Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030.”

The Institute for 21st Century Energy believes that under the executive action “consumers would pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030.” The Institute notes that “over $50 billion in lost investments every year between now and 2030…U.S. households could lose $585 billion by 2030…electrical costs would increase by $289 billion by 2030…224,000 more people could lose their jobs every year between 2014—2030…increased compliance cost [would be] $480 billion.”

Also Opposing the President’s proposals are numerous scientists who note that their research and findings, (which are contrary to the conclusions espoused by supporters of the human effect on the global temperature theory) have been wholly ignored. They are joined by those concerned that what they describe as faulty or incomplete evidence being employed to use allegations of human-caused global warming as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests.

Critics also maintain that the executive action could substantially and detrimentally impact the American economy and the cost of energy.  Major geopolitical implications will result as non-U.S. providers of energy sources, such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others benefit from it.
How to gulp commander cialis down it? Ingest the pill using one complete glass of water. Well, ED is not a major issue, cialis side effects it is just a click away. It is important to understand the cialis tab basic difference between two. It was this side effect of http://secretworldchronicle.com/2018/05/02/ no prescription tadalafil that encouraged Pfizer to develop the most popular drug in human history.
On June 26, Rep. Randy Forbes  issued the following statement:

“I am co-sponsoring the Protection and Accountability Rgulatory Act, H.R. 4812. This bill does two important things: [it] nullifies these EPA rules on emissions from power plants, [and] prohibits the EPA from issuing anything similar unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress.  I also cosponsored the REINS Act (H.R. 367) : which requires Congressional approval for regulations that cost over $100 million. It’s just common sense that we ought to have more than unelected bureaucrats writing rules that the businesses in our communities have to follow.”

On June 16, the governors of  Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming submitted the following letter to the White House, which summarized many of the policy arguments against the program:

“Mr. President:

“As Governors leading diverse States that both produce and consume energy, we ask that you pursue a pragmatic energy policy that balances our nation’s economic needs, energy security, and environmental quality objectives.

“As you know, the energy industry is a major source of job creation in our country, providing employment to millions of our citizens and bolstering U.S. economic competitiveness. America was able to meet almost 90 percent of its energy needs last year the most since March 1985 in large part because of increased domestic energy production. We take pride in the fact that domestic production largely powers America and increasingly other economies as well, helping to eradicate poverty and to provide political stability around the globe.

“Development of our resources has put more money in the pockets of working families and has helped the poor and elderly on fixed incomes, who can now more easily afford to run their air conditioning in the heat of the summer. For example, American natural gas production is reducing average retail electricity prices by 10 percent, saving households, on average, nearly $1,000 per year between 2012 and 2015.

“This significant accomplishment of increased U.S. energy independence, with its associated economic and health benefits, has been achieved largely by State policies despite redundant and burdensome federal regulation. Your proposed rules for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants and redefining the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) would unnecessarily expand federal authority over the States in energy policymaking and risk undermining our success.

“In an unprecedented move, your GHG emissions plan would largely dictate to the States the type of electricity generation they could build and operate. In addition, you seek to essentially ban coal from the U.S. energy mix. Your pursuit of this objective will heavily impact those of our states that rely primarily on coal for electricity generation such a decision should not be made by unaccountable bureaucrats. Your Administration is also pushing for Washington to seize regulatory control of nearly all waters located in the States by expanding the definition of WOTUS. If successful, the federal government would become the arbiters of how our citizens, State highway departments, county flood control and storm water agencies, utilities, irrigation districts, and farmers use their water and their land.

“Although we are still examining the impacts of the GHG proposal released on June 2 and the proposed expansion of WOTUS, we can confidently say that, according to the best available data, millions of jobs will be lost and billions of dollars will be spent over the coming decades in an effort to comply with these and other federal regulations. And those numbers stand to increase with every tightening of those standards  hitting particularly hard working families, poor, and elderly.

“Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that your Administration is content to force Americans to bear these substantial costs where there are highly questionable associated environmental benefits. In fact, your EPA Administrator admitted during testimony to the U.S. Senate that there would be no climate mitigation benefits to America pursuing unilateral action. Moreover, in 2008, you personally guaranteed that under your energy plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“You admitted that your energy plan would have the following impact: “[Energy industries] would have to retrofit their operations that will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers.”

“You rightly acknowledge that American citizens will literally pay the price of your energy agenda. They will also pay the price in the form of lost jobs and less reliable electricity. As representatives of the citizens who stand to lose so much while gaining next to nothing, it is our duty to confront this issue and to ask that you rescind the regulations you have put forth. Disposing of these regulations will protect Americans from the costs and burdens the rules would impose upon them and will ensure the continuation of America’s energy renaissance, which is indispensable to our country’s economic recovery and job creation and which is largely a result of State policies.”

THE SCIENCE

The program is a response to the theory that global warming (originally it was global cooling, and is also called climate change) has occurred as a result of human activity.

President Obama has repeatedly asserted that there is no serious valid scientific opposition to the theory. On June 26, he stated:  “So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed and sliced and diced over decades, has put that to rest. “

In reality, the Scientific community remains split on the existence or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. That assertion fails to take into account a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the theory. Indeed, the Scientific community remains split on the reality or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. While studies from the United Nations support the President’s beliefs, 31,072 American scientists including 9,029 Ph.D’s have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have warmed Earth’s climate.

A report published in Science Magazine on the heat content of the Pacific Ocean during the past 10,000 years notes that “water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctica intermediate waters were warmer…during the middle Holcene thermal maximum than over the past century.  Both water masses were…warmer during the Medieval Warm period…than in recent decades.

Professor Richard Lindzen  of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

The U.K.’s Telegraph notes that science writer Steven Goddard, using original  data from the 20th century,  has indications that the Earth has actually been cooling since the 1930’s. Swedish studies   have found that Earth was warmer both in ancient and Medieval eras than it is currently.

CONCLUSION

Substantial constitutional, scientific, economic, military and political considerations may result in a significant effort to reverse the executive action.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political earthquake hits Washington

A long expected political earthquake has struck Washington, D.C.

Within a matter of days, several key administration figures and supporters have either resigned or been raked over the coals by Republicans.  The GOP is belatedly reacting to incidents of scandal and extreme behavior on the part of the White House’s appointees and allies, and the President himself.

Responses against each of the individuals, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, former IRS official Lois Lerner, and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) is based on matters pertaining to those individuals and their actions on behalf of the Obama Administration.  However, recent actions by the President himself, including his near-pacifist defense policies  in the face of Russia’s aggression, vast military buildup, and nuclear arms treaty violations, as well as his growing closeness with the unsavory Al Sharpton may have emboldened Republicans to be more staunch in their attacks on his administration.

Intense anger on the part of farmers in Southern California, ranchers in the Southwest and property owners in a variety of states against extreme tactics and questionable decisions on the part of the White House’s radicalized Environmental Protection Agency may also have played a role in the GOP’s aggressiveness.

A growing unease also over the mounting news reports about criminal aliens being released by the federal government is also adding to public anger.
There are many Australian pharmacies online but you have to be selective and need to be explored in order to get relief from their destructive habits and a diverse range of approaches males with the sexual cheap levitra prescription condition. There is always a cheapest generic tadalafil certain pattern of every medicine. The program is also helpful from career point of view of commander cialis Dianabol remains the best and to this day. The medical experts explain that viagra canada overnight browse around now 100mg has been an age-old remedy for erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation in men.
The Sebelius resignation may actually help the President.  Polls  indicate widespread dismay over both the Affordable Healthcare itself as well as its botched rollout. If Sebelius takes the blame, that may deflect anger away from Mr. Obama.

The numerous scandals affecting Attorney General Eric Holder, as well that involving the Internal Revenue Service may be far more difficult to steer away from the White House.

The President has repeatedly denied any involvement or knowledge of the IRS misdeeds. However, the extent of the scandal, including the recently released information that no organizations other than those that vehemently disagreed with Mr. Obama were targeted, makes those statements less than convincing.  The House of Representatives has held IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt, and there is contemplation of a related criminal referral. Calls to investigate the possible collusion of Obama ally Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Eric Holder’s refusal to appoint special prosecutors in any of the key scandals has led to the perception that the Department of Justice has become a politicized agency serving only the interests of the White House, and not the nation.  Public anger may not be quelled until very significant action is taken, actions which may well permanently cripple the Administration.