Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress, mad

meme

New member
:readit:

By Gerald Warner World Last updated: December 8th, 2009

23 Comments Comment on this article

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding? The EPA may look formidable, but its situation is rather as if Rommel were buying the fuel for his tanks from the Allies.

But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?

Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.

Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States. The Protocols of the Elders of Norwich are the justification for EPA tyranny. It is with that weighty evidence at his back that Barack Obama is going to Copenhagen to sell out American taxpayers to Third World subsidy junkies, profiteering “green” corporations and the ever entrepreneurial Al Gore. This is the steal of the millennium: forget the Great Train Robbery and the Brinks Mat caper – these hoodlums are targeting $45 trillion.

Obama hates America and, increasingly, that sentiment is being reciprocated. This is a socialist, World Government putsch. Have the American people the resolution to resist it? We shall soon know.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/g...at-against-congress-made-in-britain/#comments
 
As I said yesterday, the EPA under Bush issued a similar endangerment finding in response to the Supreme Court mandate but the email attaching the endangerment finding was never opened by the White House. Instead, White House political operatives demanded a substantial re-write of the document before it would be accepted by the White House.

Also, the notion that this is some sort of "coup d'etat" by the Obama Administration when the EPA is acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law passed by Congress is, well, interesting.
 
And this says all we need to know:

But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?

Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.
 
As I said yesterday, the EPA under Bush issued a similar endangerment finding in response to the Supreme Court mandate but the email attaching the endangerment finding was never opened by the White House. Instead, White House political operatives demanded a substantial re-write of the document before it would be accepted by the White House.

Also, the notion that this is some sort of "coup d'etat" by the Obama Administration when the EPA is acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law passed by Congress is, well, interesting.
Elected officials write the laws in this country, sorry for you.
 
Elected officials write the laws in this country, sorry for you.


Oooh, someone watched Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" recently.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court found that pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to determine whether greenhouse gases emission cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA has merely acted on the requirements of the Clean Air Act as written by the elected officials in Congress and as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Try again.
 
Oooh, someone watched Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" recently.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court found that pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to determine whether greenhouse gases emission cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA has merely acted on the requirements of the Clean Air Act as written by the elected officials in Congress and as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Try again.

LOL Schoolhouse Rock. :good4u:

Congress can decree to the EPA to STFU about CO2 any time they please.
 
LOL Schoolhouse Rock. :good4u:

Congress can decree to the EPA to STFU about CO2 any time they please.


But Congress is filled with nothing but politicians, right?

That's what we keep hearing; Congress shouldn't do anything about global warming because they're not scientists, just politicians.

Well, they're getting out of the way and letting the EPA scientists do their jobs.
 
But Congress is filled with nothing but politicians, right?

That's what we keep hearing; Congress shouldn't do anything about global warming because they're not scientists, just politicians.

Well, they're getting out of the way and letting the EPA scientists do their jobs.
Dude there's a lot of politicians who claim to be scientists as well. And its not a health issue anyway.
 
Oooh, someone watched Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" recently.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court found that pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to determine whether greenhouse gases emission cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA has merely acted on the requirements of the Clean Air Act as written by the elected officials in Congress and as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Try again.

I find it even more telling that your first retort and counter argument is referencing Schoolhouse Rock.

Typically we reference what we know best.

Now wipe your nose and pull your pants up!
 
I find it even more telling that your first retort and counter argument is referencing Schoolhouse Rock.

Typically we reference what we know best.


That goes a long way towards explaining the hundreds of cheap shot fat "retorts" you've hurled my way this year.

You're a big, fat lardo too, aren't ya Jamie Lee?

Trying to fake everyone out with your avatar...NOOOOOOOW I get it!
 
That goes a long way towards explaining the hundreds of cheap shot fat "retorts" you've hurled my way this year.

You're a big, fat lardo too, aren't ya Jamie Lee?

Trying to fake everyone out with your avatar...NOOOOOOOW I get it!

Nah, ya hostess whore, with snack masters such as yourself taking up so much room it's easy to know what fat is...

Loyal is a tiny size 4, runs 2 miles a day just for fun and likes to make fat jokes at your expense because you are a grade A asshole whiner.....po' ol' fat zap waaaaaaaaaa :)
 
Last edited:
As I said yesterday, the EPA under Bush issued a similar endangerment finding in response to the Supreme Court mandate but the email attaching the endangerment finding was never opened by the White House. Instead, White House political operatives demanded a substantial re-write of the document before it would be accepted by the White House.

Also, the notion that this is some sort of "coup d'etat" by the Obama Administration when the EPA is acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law passed by Congress is, well, interesting.

Facts are like sunlight to a vampire for our resident willfully ignorant neocons. What you say here will be ignored, or viewed by extreme neocon hypocrisy.
 
That goes a long way towards explaining the hundreds of cheap shot fat "retorts" you've hurled my way this year.

You're a big, fat lardo too, aren't ya Jamie Lee?

Trying to fake everyone out with your avatar...NOOOOOOOW I get it!

You couldn't "get it", if it was free, you were the only one in line, and you had a coupon. :good4u:
 
Obama is about to fuck himself if he hasn't already.
I heard Hillary at the Copenhagen Climat Rave say the USA will give 100 billion to poor country's to go green (not a bribe).
Millions have lost jobs under Obama and he wants to give 100 billion of tax payer dollars to bribe the Chineese to go green. Yeah, that should sell. Que Palin you betcha
 
Obama is about to fuck himself if he hasn't already.
I heard Hillary at the Copenhagen Climat Rave say the USA will give 100 billion to poor country's to go green (not a bribe).
Millions have lost jobs under Obama and he wants to give 100 billion of tax payer dollars to bribe the Chineese to go green. Yeah, that should sell. Que Palin you betcha

Major correction: Millions have lost jobs under the policy's set by the last administration in 2008. It's taken THIS long just to get any NEW financial and social issues into place to try to correct the problem....and the neocons are bitching about that! (along with bluedog dems and Lieberman). 6 months from now will tell the tale if Obama's policies are having any lasting, positive effects.
 
Major correction: Millions have lost jobs under the policy's set by the last administration in 2008. It's taken THIS long just to get any NEW financial and social issues into place to try to correct the problem....and the neocons are bitching about that! (along with bluedog dems and Lieberman). 6 months from now will tell the tale if Obama's policies are having any lasting, positive effects.

Bullshit X3,
Hillary bribed them with 100 billion. That has zero to doe with Bush
 
That goes a long way towards explaining the hundreds of cheap shot fat "retorts" you've hurled my way this year.

You're a big, fat lardo too, aren't ya Jamie Lee?

Trying to fake everyone out with your avatar...NOOOOOOOW I get it!

Yeah Zapless. Whatever you say. An entire classroom of kindergartners could fit in one leg of your trousers, and I could set up residency and get lost in the square footage of one of your shirts, you fat, sweaty, green-toothed slob.
 
Back
Top