The Conservative Edge

It just keeps getting worse. Overshadowing the historic significance of December 7, the Environmental Protection Agency has today announced that it can regulate auto emissions and greenhouse gases without any legislation being passed by Congress.

As the Reuters news organization reported, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday cleared the way for regulation of greenhouse gases without new laws passed by Congress, reflecting President Barack Obama’s commitment to act on climate change as a major summit opened in Copenhagen.” The news report also quoted Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said “This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer.”

The trouble is, the Obama administration is developing a callous disregard for any opposing views, and even the law itself. The White House has already stripped the Department of Commerce from its oversight of the upcoming 2010 Census, and has in fact been feuding with the department all year. Furthermore, the Constitution empowers Congress to make laws concerning trade and commerce. If the EPA makes good on its threats to regulate the auto industry, manufacturing plants, and utilities outside of Congressional law, the agency will violate the ideals expressed by our most fundamental document.

By regulating emissions, the EPA will surely be affecting the very industries involved in production, trade, and commerce. Enforcing auto emission standards (and I would assume truck emissions as well) will have a direct influence on the trucking, shipping, and transporting industries. Manufacturers, already hit hard by increasing unemployment compensation taxes, will be further decimated by tighter emission regulations. The only way many industries will be able to lower greenhouse gas output will be to reduce production output in proportion. This will result in decreased manufacturing activity, and will translate into more job losses in the future. The power utilities will no doubt pass higher operational costs to the consumer, which will likely result in higher utility bills. More money going to pay the electric bill will mean less money going into the economy.

The Obama administration and the congressional Democrats are running roughshod over the American people. I am reminded of a passage in the Book of Revelation, where it describes a horrible beast, and asks “Who is like the beast? And who can make war with the beast?” That is what our government is turning into—a terrible beast that becomes so powerful, it can do what it wants, and nobody can fight it. This group of vipers in Washington is cloaking its thirst for power behind a seemingly innocent ideal—that of saving the environment.

If you want an idea of what America will become, just look at the Russia of the 1990s. When Russia collapsed, industry and energy output crashed as well. Russian greenhouse gas output declined so drastically, that the carbon emissions fell well below levels permitted by law. As a result, Russia now has lots of energy credits it can sell, because it piled up those credits in the economic collapse of the 1990s.

That is where the Obama administration is taking this country. The only way to satisfy the EPA’s tighter standards will be to shrink our economic output. We will be sure to stagnate, just as Russia did just over a decade ago. Welcome to the USSA—the United Socialist States of America.

A few days ago, a column written by Nicholas Kristof appeared in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Mr. Kristof’s piece stated that Americans are unable to process the oncoming threat of global warming. He asserts that we have a cavalier attitude that prevents us from perceiving future dangers, even though we are alerted at more immediate ones.

I felt compelled to write a letter to the paper, pointing out that global warming is not presented in a factual, common-sense manner. Most global warming supporters use emotionally-based arguments and presentations to make their points.

If you’d like to see the letter, and accompanying responses, follow this link to the Dayton Daily News website. Feel free to post a response either here at this blog, or at the paper’s opinion page. You might be surprised at how many people are refusing to accept the dubious global warming theory.

That’s right—Al Gore thinks you’re a Nazi if you disagree with or refuse to accept the global warming theory. Here are some of his remarks, found on the science blog Watts Up With That? on July 7, 2009:

“Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis. The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

“He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.”

That last statement is quite amusing, because the global warming theory itself relies on a perceived ignorance in order to be accepted. However, there have been polls conducted which suggest that the more people discover about global warming, the less likely they are to accept it as fact.

That’s because global warming is presented primarily as an emotional argument. We hear that the ice caps are melting; the environment is in danger; the polar bears are becoming extinct; and now, one of the most emotionally-charged statements of all coming from the mouth of Al Gore, associating global warming resisters with the Nazis.

Demagogues such as Al Gore are forced to use emotion in their remarks because they have little else to go on. Facts and common sense contradict the global warming theory. There are scientists who believe that we need not rush into hasty and overzealous legislation to combat the buildup of “greenhouse gases.” The average American can easily grasp the notion that solar activity can account for as much as 68% of Earth’s temperature variation. That’s just common sense, since the sun is our primary source of heat. But that doesn’t make the same kind of headlines that Al Gore likes to make with his remarks about the Nazis.

In fact, one could make the case that it is Al Gore who is acting like a Nazi. When Hitler began gathering support and power, he first felt compelled to rid the German government of all Communists. However, since most of the Communists happened to be Jews, Hitler extended his persecution to the Jewish race. Hitler relentlessly blamed the Jews for Germany’s ills, making them scapegoats for everything. It’s downright spooky to see how Al Gore demonizes those who disagree with his gospel, just as Hitler did in the 1920s and 1930s.

The real danger of global warming is that it can be used to completely change and control our lives. It can limit our transportational freedoms, and dictate how we feed our families and heat our homes. We don’t need or deserve the level of domination and control that will envelop us if global warming legislation is fully implemented. That’s what Al Gore is really after—domination and control. He hates us, you know.

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.

I noticed the results of an online survey this past week regarding the cost of gasoline. The survey leads me to believe (to continue to believe, I might say) that the elected officials in Washington aren’t listening to the people they supposedly represent. The liberals, especially, continue their sky-is-falling scare tactics about global warming, while doing nothing to alleviate Americans’ fears that gasoline costs will again rise in the near future.

The polling group Ipsos conducted an online survey from May 19 through May 25. Following are some of the results:

• When asked to choose between lower gas prices and reduced auto emissions, 66 percent of Americans said that lower gas prices was the more important issue.
• When asked whether the government should subsidize food crops or ethanol production, 82 percent felt that food subsidies were more important; 56 percent felt that ethanol production created higher food prices.
• When the survey asked whether energy independence or lower food prices was more important, 55 percent opted for energy independence.

So it seems that, generally, Americans desire lower gas prices, and then reduced food costs, ahead of any emission or greenhouse gas concerns. If the liberals in Washington were attentive to these issues, they could put more Americans to work producing more American energy, to the benefit of society. The American people aren’t necessarily as stupid as the liberals believe. People understand that energy dependence leads to higher energy costs. Most of us remember that the spike in oil prices (all the way to $147 a barrel) not only led to a rise in gas prices, but caused food prices to escalate as well. This vicious cycle will be repeated as long as the liberals keep their stranglehold on American society, and fail to heed the working class.

Feel free to send these survey results to your elected officials. They need to hear our voices. You can bet that they will soon attempt to impose higher gasoline taxes (just look at what they did to tobacco products). We can’t let that happen without a fight.

I’ve been giving some attention to the reaction of the local media to last week’s Tea Party here in Dayton, Ohio. Our newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, generally downplayed the event. There seemed to be too many ordinary people who were present, too many blue-collar conservative types. Oh, and let’s not forget–they were mostly white folks.

As I read various articles and blogs, I noticed that of the people who carried signs at the event, there seemed to be no predominant message, other than venting at big government in general. There were lots of people who gathered because of one big issue that troubled each of them. Some people, for instance, were irate about high taxes. Others were concerned about government spending. Still others questioned the bank bailouts. You get the idea.

But I wonder how many people can put all of those little pieces together in order to craft the big picture of what this present administration is really trying to do? And how many folks can look back just a few years ago, to see when and how all of these power grabs got started? The speed of legislative action and the enactment of liberal ideology since January of 2009 has been breathtaking. The dominos are falling rapidly. The closure of Guantanamo Bay; the blitz of tobacco taxes; the reshaping of the auto industry; and now the judgement of the EPA concerning greenhouse gases, are all indications that there is serious social re-engineering going on.

I wish that conservatives could put everything together. The religious right, for example, should get off the abortion soapbox. They think that if a potential congressional or presidential candidate doesn’t say exactly what they want to hear on the abortion issue, they can’t support him. When they withdraw their votes, the liberal fanatics get to fill the vacuum. If the abortion foes would just see the bigger picture, they could help expose the liberal hypocrisy. Namely, the liberals want to give women the right to do as they please with their own bodies (by having abortions), but those same liberals want to take away everyone else’s right to do as they please with their bodies by enjoying tobacco. And these liberals have tried to validate their seizure of the right to use tobacco by citing suspicious and questionable “research” done on the dangers of tobacco use, going all the way back to the 1970s.

They have also been hammering on the oil companies since the late ’70s. Remember Jimmy Carter’s efforts to hammer oil companies with a “windfall profit” tax? And didn’t the liberals raise the same idea last year? Instead of allowing more responsible use of American resources, they restricted further the exploration and production of American oil and gas. What would happen if the oil companies stopped pumping because of the crushing profit taxes? Fuel costs would likely spike even higher.

We all need to see that the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time. They now have the opportunity to implement the many items on their agenda. We need to understand the many issues that are jeopardizing our freedoms. To the world, our President is appearing to be thoughtful, cooperative, and non-threatening. At home, he and his Democratic cohorts are squeezing the last bits of freedom from American society. Can you see the big picture?

Not too long ago, I wrote a commentary titled “Why Liberals Hate Us.” I referred to a column written by Brock Yates, published years ago in Car and Driver magazine. In his column, Yates cited some other writers, who said that the automobile represented one of the last bastions of unregulated freedom. And that’s why liberals have always hated cars. They resent ordinary Americans who derive such pleasure from driving, collecting, restoring, and hot-rodding their favorite cars. Since the late ’60s and through the ’70s, the car haters sought to regulate the automobile and anything connected with the industry.

So, they made seat belts, air bags, ignition interlock switches and 5-MPH bumpers mandatory equipment on all autos sold in America. While countries such as Germany had brilliantly engineered autobahns, superior driver training, and high driving speeds, the liberals here decided we should crawl down the road at 55 miles per hour. We have also been taxed like the colonists were under King George. We pay more in gasoline taxes than the actual cost of the fuel. We have to pay sales tax every time we buy a used car, much less a new one. Every year, it seems like we pay more and more for our car registration fees and driving license fees. All of this is done because liberals hate us and our cars.

Now, in 2009, we have a President who is just as eager to dump on the auto industry as the rest of the liberals in Congress. With the perfect storm of high oil prices in 2008, a collapse of domestic car sales, and an economic crisis, the Obama administration gets what other Democrats before him could only dream of. He now has the opportunity to dictate to the car companies exactly what kind of cars they can make, and how to make them.

This is confirmed by a recent report made public by the Environmental Protection Agency. As reported by Yahoo!, the EPA has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans’ health. “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare,” said the EPA. It was the first time the federal government had said it was ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

This opens the door very wide for Congress, especially the car-hating liberals, to regulate the automobile right out of our lives. Pay attention to the following quotes: It’s “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn’t move, Boxer said she would press EPA to take swift action. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hopes to craft legislation in the coming weeks, called the EPA action “a game changer.” “It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation,” said Markey.

For years, the liberals have been trying to convince us how bad the automobile has been, and how we are guilty for loving such terrible contraptions. Never mind that cars sold in California, for example, have been practically emission-free for years. The liberals have been trying to stigmatize the automobile for a long time, the same way they demonize tobacco and firearms. They are getting set to take it all away.

The Investor’s Business Daily recently quoted Czech President Vaclav Klaus in an editorial piece. Klaus said “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism.” Klaus told the Cato Institute that “environmentalism is a religion” that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic social order.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank you folks who regularly view this blog site. There have been some great comments left in response to certain topics. I recommend that you read one particular comment by Dave, in response to my post “A Letter to Kathleen Parker.”

I have written previously about my skepticism concerning the whole global warming theory (just look in the December archives link). Notice that I didn’t say “climate change theory.” What’s the difference? Well, our climate may indeed be changing, and may be part of a natural cycle. I’m sure that geologists can find historical evidence of repeated changes in the Earth’s climate. The History Channel recently revealed that some 5,000 years ago, there was melting of the polar ice, due to some climatic change.

But the global warming theory suggests that mankind is responsible for the current change(s) in climate. That is a much different view, and goes beyond any statistical processes used to track environmental patterns. Global warming proponents are using their theory to bring about social and economic changes. America will unfairly be held responsible for causing global warming, and to also reverse the effects. How many billions of dollars will it take to “undo” the damage? What will we have to give up in order to satisfy the alarmists? There is nothing wrong with eliminating sources of pollution, but it seems presumptuous to blame the average American, and American industry, for dumping CO2 in the air and creating a worldwide greenhouse.

Columnist George Will, who also questions the global warming theory, remembers the opinion held in the 1970s that we were headed for a new ice age. He reveals that The New York Times reported on May 21, 1975, that “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was certain that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” Indeed, I remember seeing reruns of the show “In Search Of” hosted by Leonard Nimoy in the late 70s. One episode showed scientists examining ice core samples for proof that we were headed for a great global cooling. The harsh winters in states like New York and Ohio in 1977 and 1978 seemed to support that idea. But the fears of a new Ice Age were unfounded, and the global cooling never materialized.

George Will shares an interesting fact in his column. On February 18, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of February, there were operational problems with the satellites that measure sea ice. These problems caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That’s an area roughly equivalent to the size of California. In other words, we didn’t lose as much sea ice as the alarmists might want us to believe.

Funny how a little thing like a satellite malfunction can blow a big hole in the global warming theory.