• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    July 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Obama Willfully Breaking Laws and Violating the Constitution – Time to Impeach, Nullify, and Possibly Incarcerate

Why is congress waiting? Why are the American people LETTING congress wait? Obama has committed more than enough offenses that can easily be considered impeachable. He has willfully and knowingly broken the law, yet no one stands in his way. Why?  Will congress and the American people just stand by and let him continue the destruction or America?  Every time congress has a chance to become relevant again and put a stop to Obama’s treachery, they punt.  Why?  Will the last true American out of Washington, D.C. please turn off the lights and bring the flag?

Here are a few of the things Obama has done to break laws and butcher the constitution:

War Powers Act
Illegal Immigration/Amnesty
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)


War Powers Act

(All previous presidents and most people alive right now think that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  However, all presidents since its passage have complied with it.  Yes, even George W. Bush.  Until it is overturned, it is still the law of the land, like it or not.  It’s not a question of supporting Qadaffi.  He’s a douche bag of the first order.  It is an illustration of mission creep the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Vietnam. More importantly, it demonstrates the imperial presidents flagrant disregard for the constitution and the rule of law.)


June 17, 2011

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate


WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.  (You’re dropping bombs on people and killing them.  How could that NOT be considered hostile???)

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days(60 days, with a 30 day grace period to either get approval from congress, or begin withdrawal.  The full 90 days passed on June 20th, and we’re still killing Libyans,  not to mention people in Yemen, and who knows where else.)

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.  (“Constitutional lawyer?  Yeah, right. )

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.  (“No troops on the ground” is at best parsing the definition of “is.”  It was revealed only days after the Libyan operation started that we had special forces personnel on the ground.  Are they “troops,” or just “special people?”)

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.   (Consistent with previous administrations?  How do you figure?  When they went to war they did so with congressional approval.  This president thinks “he don’t need no stinking congress.”  The law be damned.)

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”   (Trust a DoJ that has already demonstrated it will ignore laws being broken if doing so helps “their guy?”  New Black Panthers, anyone?)

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 17, 2011

An earlier version of this article misspelled in one reference the surname of the Pentagon general counsel. He is Jeh C. Johnson, not Johnsen.


Illegal Immigration/Amnesty

(No president in recent times has done anything substantial to stem the tide of illegal immigration.  Ronald Regan’s amnesty illustrates that it’s not just a democrat or republican issue.  Now we have Obama issuing directives to federal agencies to ignore federal immigration law, in addition to having his justice department sue states for attempting to do what previous administrations including his have failed to do, that is, their job.)


Memo outlines backdoor ‘amnesty’ plan

Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times 8:39 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn’t mean the agency has embraced the policy and “nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” he said in an e-mail statement. “We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.”

He said the Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”  (Not believable.  This is EXACTLY what they are pushing for.  It failed under Reagan, and will fail again, unless you’re a liberal/progressive who WANTS to keep the illegals here to instantly add millions to the group most likely to vote for you.)

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress(As they have on many issues.)

“This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan,” Mr. Grassley said.

The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.  (This is rich.  The administration intends to bypass congress… again, but turn around and ask them to fund its treachery.  Amazing.)

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of “deferred action” – or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone – would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’(On most issues that seem to be surprising people about the Obama administration, they never hid what they were trying to do.  The friendly and cooperative media just didn’t report Obama’s and his minions OWN WORDS on the subjects.  They have told us what they plan to do, and their plans are un-American and unconstitutional.)

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that’s been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers(See the pattern?  Lie, deny, then obfuscate and parse when they get caught.  They have done this on everything they have been caught doing.)

“I don’t know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law,” he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

“I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress’ participation. I will just say that to you for what it’s worth,” Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

“The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system –  threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In one letter, the senators warned the president against making an end-run around congressional authority to write immigration rules, and asked for Mr. Obama to promise that he would not use the rules to grant mass pardons.

Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager for NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates for stricter immigration limits, said the memo is “an outrageous usurpation of congressional authority. It is unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to the American people.”

She said that the memo could explain why the push for an immigration bill has faltered in Congress.

“This makes sense of the fact that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and Obama are sitting back calmly content with not moving immigration reform this year – because they know Obama is trying to take care of it for them, without Democrats having to be tied down to a vote before the election,” she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, immigrant rights groups have demanded that Mr. Obama halt deportations until he secures a broad legalization bill from Congress – legislation that supporters call “comprehensive immigration reform because it would tackle enforcement, some aspects of legal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants at the same time.  (Quinn’s first law of liberalism:  Every liberal law or policy always has the exact opposite effect of its stated intent.  “Comprehensive immigration reform” when spoken by a liberal means “amnesty” to everyone else.)

Two senators earlier this year wrote asking the administration to use its powers to stop deporting students who might be eligible for the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant college students brought to the U.S. at a young age to gain legal status. The legislation has not been passed by Congress.

Mr. Obama has rejected halting deportations, but his administration has been more careful about whom it pursues.

According to new figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the administration has stepped up its efforts to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, but removal of “non-criminal” illegal immigrants has slowed so far in fiscal 2010.


Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

(My personal view is that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, and should be a state issue.  While I may morally disagree with homosexuality, I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I think they should be denied the right to choose a partner.  You can call it a civil union or whatever, just not “marriage” when it’s not between a man and a woman.  To do so is an attempt to further erode the moral base of this country and force acceptance of something that most find objectionable.  The constitution doesn’t address federal authority to address/regulate this issue.  Historically states have enjoyed reciprocity with other states when it comes to recognizing marriages from another state, but the point is THEY DON’T HAVE TO. As a side note illustrating the “selective” constitutional outrage of the left, if the federal government forces states to recognize gay marriage, or any marriage from another state, then they constitutionally will be forced to make states recognize right-to-carry/concealed-carry weapons permits from other states.  However, I’m sure they will conveniently fail to make the logical leap here.  Back to the original point, whether or not you LIKE DOMA, as the president you CAN’T just decide to have your justice department stop enforcing it because you don’t like it.  There’s a process for changing or repealing a law that must be followed, but while that process plays out you must enforce existing law.  Unless, of course, you are a dictator and no longer bound by a constitution or laws…)


Obama Administration Drops Legal Defense of ‘Marriage Act’

By JAKE TAPPER (@jaketapper) , SUNLEN MILLER (@sunlenmiller) and DEVIN DWYER (@devindwyer)

Feb. 23, 2011

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 banned federal recognition of same-sex unions.

The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.” (Key point here, since when does the president under our constitution have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law?  Separation of powers, anyone?  He is overstepping his bounds.)

Holder wrote that the president has instructed government lawyers to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

However, administration officials pledged to continue to enforce the law, which remains in effect unless Congress repeals it or a court strikes it down.

The highly unusual, though not unprecedented, decision not to defend a federal law amounts to a major change of course for the administration which has previously said it was obligated to do so even if it disagreed with it.  (He can instruct his administration to file lawsuits against the law, and he can lobby congress to change or repeal the law, but as long as the law is the law, the president and his justice department are OBLIGATED to defend it.  Unless you’re a tin-pot dictator…)

Legal experts said the move would likely influence judges currently weighing federal lawsuits against DOMA and a handful of challenges to same-sex marriage bans at the state level.  (…influencing judges…)

“It’s certainly going to be persuasive in federal courts that even the government, who had a responsibility to defend the statutes if it could find a basis for doing so, felt that a ‘heightened scrutiny’ does apply,” said former George W. Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge against California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriages in that state.

Judges have largely employed a loose legal standard, known as “rational basis,” that requires only a reasonable relationship between a law’s purpose and its effect to determine whether a gay marriage ban is constitutional.

But the Obama administration reasoned in its decision that a tougher standard ought to be imposed on arguments against unions between same-sex couples.

“The government has decided that prevailing social views of morality are no longer sufficient to justify discrimination against homosexuals,” said American University constitutional law professor Stephen Vladeck.  (So, when that prevailing majority follows a legal and constitutional process to declare that portion of your agenda illegal IN THEIR STATE, you just get the activist court to overturn it.  The will of the people be damned.)

“The administration has decided to abide by a higher standard then courts have thus far required,” he said. “The heightened scrutiny standard is traditionally reserved for discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion and other areas where minority groups should receive special consideration.”  (It’s NOT discrimination to clarify the DEFINITION of marriage, which is bullet number one in pretty much every argument against “gay marriage.”)

The news that Obama would drop his defense of the Defense of Marriage Act was hailed by gay rights activists.

“This is a monumental decision,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. “Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.”  (This is where Mr. Solmonese is more correct than he understands.  Indeed, “The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize” because it should be a STATE MATTER.)

Gay Marriage Opponents Denounce Move

Republicans and opponents of same-sex marriage sharply criticized the administration’s decision as an undue distraction from focus on the economy and an extraordinary break from precedent.  (True.)

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

“It is a transparent attempt to shirk the [Justice] Department’s duty to defend the laws passed by Congress,” said Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, in a statement. “This is the real politicization of the Justice Department– when the personal views of the President override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.”

DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. The law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that while the administration would not defend DOMA it would remain a party in the legal cases so that they can proceed to a judgment and allow other interested parties the opportunity to step in and defend the law if they wish.

“The administration will do everything it can to assist the Congress if it so wishes to do that,” Carney said. “We recognize and respect that there are other points of view and other opinions about this.”  (Platitudes.)

In California, where neither Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger nor Gov. Jerry Brown, nor their attorneys general, chose to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, they remained parties in the case, allowing outside groups to provide legal counsel to defend the law.

Marriage Sticky Issue for Obama

The issue of gay marriage has long been a difficult one for Obama. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in principle as a candidate, but until today he defended it in court.

In June 2009, for example, Obama’s Justice Department invoked incest and adults marrying children as reasons to uphold DOMA.

Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The president believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed. But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.”

Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be “inordinately challenging.”

The administration may now be hoping that a federal court will strike down the law nationwide, officially rendering it null.

In July 2010, a federal district court judge ruled DOMA unconstitutional. But the case remains on appeal.

Personally, the president does not support gay marriage, saying instead that he supports strong civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. But his opinion may be changing.

“He’s grappling with the issue,” Carney said today. “But he — again, I want to make the distinction between his personal views, which he has discussed, and the legal issue, the legal decision that was made today. ”

At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay service members, Obama said of gay marriage, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.”

“I struggle with this,” he said. “I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

Americans Narrowly Divided on Gay Marriage

Americans divide about evenly on gay marriage, according to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Forty-seven percent said it should be legal, 50 percent illegal, with strong opinions on both sides.

As recently as 2006, 36 percent favored legalizing same-sex marriage with 58 percent opposed.

Gay civil unions, with “the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage,” are less controversial — 66 percent in favor, according to the latest poll, a new high by a substantial margin.

ABC News’ Ariane de Vogue and Gary Langer contributed to this report.



(The entire man-caused climate-change/global-warming THEORY is just that, a theory.  It is based on manipulated junk science that has been exposed and disproven over, and over, and over again.  Yet by continuing to throw the mud on the wall, proponents of the theory hope that some of it will stick, and they have enjoyed a great deal of success.  But WHY are they pushing so hard to pass cap-and-trade and other CO2 regulating laws and regulations?  One single word: CONTROL.  Limiting man’s production of CO2 will likely have little or no demonstrable effect on the climate, but by controlling the production of CO2, every single aspect of a modern economy can be controlled.  If you can’t produce CO2, you can’t produce fuel, food, and just about anything you can name.  If you follow this to extremes, keep in mind that every breathing person also “emits” and produces CO2.  What if “they” decide that you shouldn’t be allowed to do that?  Sounds crazy, but so did many other things this administration is now doing that sounded farfetched just two years ago.)


Court rejects judicially mandated cap and trade

By: Ken Klukowski | OpEd Contributor | 06/20/11 8:05 PM

When President Obama took office, even his Democrat-controlled Congress didn’t pass a cap-and-trade law because they understood a $2 trillion burden would strangle our economy.

In the months since, Obama’s EPA decided to create a cap-and-trade system through regulations, neatly sidestepping the dual impediments of democracy and the separation of powers.


SEPTEMBER 3, 2009, 3:02 P.M. ET

Terms of ‘Endangerment’

The EPA’s anti-carbon rule is an admission that CO2 limits hurt the economy.

Cap and trade may be flopping around like a dying fish in Congress, but the Obama Administration isn’t about to let the annoyance of democratic consent interfere with its climate ambitions. Almost as bad is the new evidence that it (the Obama administration) understands how damaging its carbon regulations and taxes will be and is pressing ahead anyway.

The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s April “endangerment finding” that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public’s health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill.  (Is it possible to argue that the Obama admin ISN’T trying to render congress irrelevant?  Hardly.  Worse yet, congress is LETTING itself be rendered irrelevant.)

Yet a curious twist is buried in the EPA’s draft rule. The trade press is reporting that the agency thinks it enjoys the discretion to target the new rules only to major industrial sources of carbon emissions, such as power plants, refineries, factories and the like. This so-called “tailoring rule” essentially rewrites clear statutory language of the Clean Air Act by bureaucratic decree.  (This is what’s called “legislation by regulation.”  An unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.)

Because the act was never written to apply to today’s climate neuroses, clean-air regulation is based on an extremely low threshold for CO2 emissions that will automatically transfer hundreds of thousands of businesses into the EPA’s ambit. The agency is required to regulate sources that emit more than 250 tons of a given air pollutant annually, which may be reasonable for conventional pollutants like NOX or SOX. (Here’s the rub.  CO2 IS. NOT. A. POLLUTANT. CO2. IS. PLANT. FOOD.)

Read complete article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388642894879438.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: