Conservative Happenings

Monday, August 3, 2015

They Hate Your Guts (Democrats and their voters).

I would like to address myself to the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refugees teeming to America’s shore, the homeless, the economically, socially, and mentally tempest-tossed. Also, I’d like to address the young, the hip, the progressive, the compassionate, and the caring. I’d like a word with everyone who votes for Democrats.

GARY LOCKE

Democrats hate your guts.

Democrats need your vote and they’ll do anything—no matter how low and degrading—to get it. They hate you the way a whore hates a john.

All politicians hate people. Politics is a way to gain power over people without justification for having that power. Nothing in the 11,000-year history of politics—going back to the governing elites of Mesopotamia—indicates that politicians are wiser, smarter, kinder, more moral, or better skilled at any craft (aside from politics) than we are.

But political rulers need the acquiescence of the ruled to slake the craving for power. Politicians hate you the way a junkie hates junk.

Politicians gain power by means of empty promises or threats, or both when they’re on their game. Should you vote for people who are good at politics? No. You should vote for Republicans. We’re lousy.

Believe me, I know why you don’t vote for Republicans. You see the Republican candidates and they look so . . . Bush-League, Dog Walker, Rubio Rube, Get-Outta-the-Carson, Hucka-Upchuck, Ap-Paul-ling, Cruz Control, Fat-Fried Christie Crispy, Son-of-a-Kasich, Dingleberry Perry, Flee the Fiorina, Sancta-Santorum, Graham Cracker, and Nervous 7/11 Night Shift Manager Jindal.

And never mind the busted flush Trump Card who should be spray-painted with Rust-Oleum primer, have a squirt gun super-glued to his hand, and kicked through the front door of the Ferguson, Mo., police station.

You think, “I don’t want to vote for these people.”

Just between you and me, we Republicans think the same thing.

Republican politicians stink. This is because real Republicans don’t go into politics. We have a life. We have families, jobs, responsibilities, and it takes all our time and energy to avoid them and go play golf. We leave politics to our halt, our lame, and our feeble-minded. Republican candidacies are sinecures for members of the GOP who are otherwise useless and/or retired.

Democrats, on the other hand, are brilliant politicians. And I mean that as a vicious slur. Think how we use the word “politics.” Are “office politics” ever a good thing? When somebody “plays politics” to get a promotion, does he or she deserve it? When we call a coworker “a real politician,” is that a compliment?

“But,” you say, “Republicans don’t love us either.” And we don’t. As voters you are demographic groups. Republicans do not love demographic groups. Actually, Republicans do not love groups at all, with a few exceptions: The guys in the combat unit they commanded. Blood relations old enough to have been dead for years. Intimates of their private clubs. Golf buddies. Fellow guests at the Alfalfa dinner. And everybody in Bohemian Grove. But this love is proclaimed only after copious drink has been taken.

Loving you would mean Republicans are paying attention to you. We aren’t. Republicans pay attention to only a few people:

* Members of their golf foursome

* Business-associate members of their golf foursome

* Investment adviser members of their golf foursome

* Members of other golf foursomes at the 19th hole

* Their spouses (that is, their most recent spouses, married for being rich or hot)

* Their children (except the artisanal pot grower in Mendocino who’s shacked up with a holistic dance therapist—he’s cut out of the will)

And in that order.

Democrats pay a lot of attention to you. They offer you all sorts of trick-or-treat giveaways.

Benefits are the way government is expanded. The more government expansion, the more opportunities for politicians to get power. (Beware of razor blades in the candy apples.)

Democrats offer you regulations to make your life safer from razor blades in candy apples. Regulations expand government with unelected regulatory bodies so that politicians can get power without bothering about your vote.

Via: Weekly Standard

Lindsey Graham: ‘Perfect storm’ brewing vs. U.S.

The United States faces the greatest risk of terrorist activity since 9/11 and national security will be a defining issue of the 2016 election, presidential hopeful Lindsey Graham told New Hampshire residents at a Town Hall-style gathering yesterday in Manchester.

The South Carolina senator — with Sen. John McCain by his side — gave a bleak assessment of the country’s security status, and said the expanding reach of terrorist groups, defense cuts and the Iran nuclear deal create a recipe for domestic disaster.

“This deal is a bad deal for us and for Israel and everyone else,” he said. “There is a perfect storm brewing for us to get hit. Here. Hard.”

A roomful of voters encircled Graham and McCain, who both slammed President Obama for a soft approach to foreign policy.

The meeting gave Granite State voters a glimpse of what’s to come at a Voters First Forum tomorrow, where residents will get to vet GOP candidates.

As president, Graham said, he would pour more money into the military and send soldiers back to Iraq.

Via: Boston Herald

This has been the biggest surprise for the Democratic Party

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser.

Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

Frankly, not even Bernie Sanders thought this—Berniemania—would happen. “No, no, we didn’t,” he tells me, as I sit facing him in his Washington office, which is decorated with bottles of maple syrup. A plaque features Eugene Debs, five-time Socialist Party candidate for president. The notorious Sanders hair, to be honest, has been greatly exaggerated; it lies placidly, almost respectably across his ruddy scalp. And truthfully, the socialism rap has been blown out of proportion as well: Sanders accepts “democratic socialist” as an accurate descriptor of his philosophy, but he never sought it as an identity.

“The campaign is moving so fast the infrastructure can’t keep up,” Sanders confesses. “It sometimes reminds me of a military campaign, where the front line of the army is moving faster than the supply chain.” Since Berniemania began this summer, he and a small band of aides have been scrambling to turn it to their advantage.

You don’t often hear politicians admit that they didn’t expect to catch on. But Sanders and his team have a bracing habit of saying things politicians and their aides are not supposed to say—a minor violation of norms that reminds you how accustomed we are to being lied to in politics.

Another basic tenet of campaign spin is that consultants must never admit their candidate isn’t totally perfect, but Sanders’s people apparently missed that lesson as well.

Via: Business Insider

Iran Publishes Book On How To Outwit U.S. And Destroy Israel

While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel | New York Post

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.

However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.

The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”

The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”

Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”

He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.

Via: New York Post

STICK A RAINBOW FLAG IN THE BOY SCOUTS – THEY’RE DONE!

The governing body of the Boy Scouts of America has voted to allow gay leaders into their ranks. Many see that decision as wise as letting Michael Moore guard your Oreos.

Former Secretary of Defense and current Boy Scout President Robert Gates said:

“For far too long this issue has divided and distracted us. Now it’s time to unite behind our shared belief in the extraordinary power of Scouting to be a force for good in a community and in the lives of its youth members.”

Yes, let’s all join hands in the big circle of unity! Who wants to hold hands with our new leader, Lance? Isn’t this Gates guy the one who got rid of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell military policy? It seems getting gay people into organizations that functioned perfectly without them is his only raison d’etre.

AWD estimates the decision affects approximately ten homosexuals who, for what reasons we can only imagine, want to camp out with young boys. What could go wrong? Well, it will and the Boy Scouts will die a quick death once the lawsuits from boys molested by leaders start rolling in. And they will.

The decision to allow gay leaders is not being forced on religious organizations with BSA organizations who have moral issues with homosexuality. So just wait until the First Baptist Church of Lizard Lick with 50 parishioners is hit with a lawsuit from the ACLU for not letting the town girly-man take their boys on an overnighter to see how fast scouting folds. Church scouting groups will immediately end their relationship with the Boy Scouts of America forever.

Why do gays force their way into an organization where they are not wanted or welcome? If gay people want to be Scouts, why don’t they start their own Gay Scouting organization? That way they could do whatever they want without restraint. The reason? Because they can. The second reason is they would have nearly zero boy scouts. Who would let their kid participate in scouting with a gay leader?

Starting their own scouting organization is exactly what the Mormon Church is about to do! The LDS Church is the largest supporter of the Boy Scouts of America and pays a large percentage of Boy Scouts of America’s costs. Mormons will not allow gays to be involved in scouting as they see homosexuality as a moral sin. Scouting will crumble in a few short years after the Mormons go their own way.

I’m sad but not surprised that this venerable organization folded to the Gay Gestapo. It’s the way this country is devolving into a nation of cowards where it’s rare to find anyone who will defend tradition and beliefs. The 97% of of heterosexuals in America does not seem capable of standing up to the 3% who are homosexuals.

Again, nobody is stopping gays from being scouts. Let them form their own Gay Scouts of America the way the Mormons will soon form their Mormon Scouts of America. Who cares? But that’s not the way fascists work.

Via: Angry White Dude

Obama signs highway bill, scolds Congress for 'seat of our pants' fix

President Barack Obama says the U.S. government can't keep funding highway and transit projects "by the seat of our pants."

Obama's comments came as he signed a three-month bill to keep transportation money flowing to states. The patch is the 34th short-term transportation measure since 2009.

The Senate passed the measure Thursday, one day before the deadline for a cutoff of funds.

The president says that while it's good news projects will continue to be funded, Congress needs to stop leaving business until the last minute. He says that's not how countries like China or Germany operate.

The Senate also passed a sweeping, long-term transportation bill that sets up discussions with the House this fall on the future of transportation policy and how to pay for programs.

Via: Fox News

Sunday, August 2, 2015

[VIDEO] Fox News Reporter Says The Harsh Truth And Obama Spokesman Hates It. Things Get Heated.

Perceived by many as a low blow, Earnest’s gibe earned scorn from numerous online critics.

When White House press secretary Josh Earnest attempted to describe the recent allegations against Planned Parenthood as a witch hunt, Fox News Channel’s Kevin Corke took him to task.

Earnest alleged that multiple unbiased sources concluded the series of undercover videos depicting Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the sale of harvested baby parts was in fact a heavily edited smear campaign.

Via: Western journalism

[VIDEO] Chattanooga Marine Unleashes BRUTAL Video On Obama, Says 9 Words That Are Going Viral

"If you want our respect, earn it, because right now all you have is our resentment."

A U.S. Marine offered President Barack Obama a tough lesson in what it means to show respect for his fallen brothers-in-arms.

In the 11 minute video, the unnamed veteran, who said he is from Chattanooga, first called out the president on the manner he chose to speak following the Chattanooga shootings.

Via: Western Journalism

[Commentary] How can we talk rationally about abortion?

“#PPSellsBabyParts” was the gut-punching hashtag that quickly sprang up on Twitter in response to the sting videos in which a Planned Parenthood official casually discusses the donation — or, some say, sale — of organs from aborted fetuses.

So far, the reactions have been along predictable partisan lines. Nonetheless, the videos may well be a new turn in the abortion war, pushing many in the ambivalent center closer to the anti-abortion position.

Is there any way to strive toward a middle ground in this emotionally charged debate?

Abortion-rights liberals and feminists have focused on attacking the messenger, pointing out the videos were made by anti-abortion advocates who engaged in deception (setting up a fake biomedical firm) to secretly record the footage. But it’s a fair bet that no liberals would raise the same objections if, say, anti-racism activists had used deceptive tactics to expose racist practices in hiring or apartment rentals. There are widespread claims the videos are “selectively edited,” yet the full footage of the conversations was made available at the same time.

For conservatives and other anti-abortion-rights folks, the videos confirm what they have long believed: The “abortion industry” is an evil enterprise that dismembers babies for profit. Republicans are planning to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding (which accounts for up to 40 percent of its budget if you count Medicaid payments). State investigations are underway in Florida, Wisconsin and Louisiana.

Even many pro-abortion-rights commentators agree that, whether the financial discussions in the videos are about illegal organ sales or legitimate recouping of donation expenses, the videos are disturbing. The casual tone in which the Planned Parenthood staffers talk about better ways to “crush” the fetus to obtain more intact hearts and livers is appalling to anyone with a conscience. Some say battle-hardened doctors can sound equally callous when discussing other procedures. But the fact is that other medical procedures are intended to restore health or save lives; abortion ends, at the very least, a potential human life. To dismiss our revulsion as a mere emotional reaction is to deaden our moral instinct.

This is not to say that those who are anti-abortion have no agenda beyond “life.” Many are deeply hostile to sexual freedom and attached to a traditional view of motherhood as women’s calling. Conservatives assail the presumed hypocrisy of abortion-rights advocates for whom the difference between an unborn baby and disposable tissue is the mother’s intent. Yet those who want to ban abortion with an exception for pregnancies from nonconsensual sex are inconsistent: No one would advocate killing a baby born from rape or incest.

The moral muddle of abortion may be inevitable given the complexities of the issue itself. Abortion, at least past early pregnancy, is a repugnant procedure; feminists who call for “abortion without apology” could alienate far more people than they convert. But for many of us, forcing a person to go through with pregnancy and childbirth against her will is also repugnant.

While there is no persuading the committed activists on either side, polls show that most Americans are open to compromise solutions. Limiting post-first-trimester abortions to true medical necessity could be one such measure. Another way to de-escalate the conflict would be to stop taxpayer funding for organizations that perform elective abortions.

For Planned Parenthood, which offers many other women’s health services, this would mean either giving up taxpayer funds or stopping abortion services; low-cost abortions could be provided by new clinics relying on private donations.

A politician who could steer the way toward such a compromise would be a national hero.

Via: Palm Beach Post

[VIDEO] Unreal: Gun Used in Terror Attack on Mohammed Cartoon Contest Sold Through Operation Fast and Furious

On May 4, 2015 Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson drove from Phoenix to Garland, Texas to carry out a terror attack against conservatives hosting a Mohammed cartoon contest. When they arrived on scene, they were immediately shot and killed by police after opening fire outside the building.

It turns out Soofi purchased his gun under the Holder Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious back in 2010. As a reminder, Operation Fast and Furious was a program that ran from 2009-2010 in which federal agents purposely allowed the sale of thousands of weapons, including handguns, AK-47s and .50-caliber rifles, to known drug cartels. Agents deliberately allowed weapons to be trafficked and lost in Mexico. Now, Barack Obama's bloodiest scandal has hit home once again. Richard Serrano at the LA Times has the incredible details:

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi's history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers. What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Soofi's attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

In other words, ATF and the FBI pushed through a shady gun sale that ultimately was used in a terror attack against Americans on U.S. soil.

Not surprisingly the FBI has been stonewalling information about Soofi's firearm and the guns used during the Garland attack for months. They did the same when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by Mexican drug bandits in Arizona on December 15, 2010. The guns used in his murder were also sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. More from Serrano:

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an "urgent firearms disposition request" to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.

Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed "to assist in a criminal investigation," according to Johnson's letter, also reviewed by The Times.

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Keep in mind not a single person involved in Operation Fast and Furious has been fired. In fact, many Department of Justice officials and ATF supervisors have been promoted. ATF agents who exposed the scandal, however, have faced extreme retaliation in addition to career and personal sabotage.

Via: TownHall

22 Quotes to Celebrate Milton Friedman Day

July 31 is known as a day to honor conservative economist Milton Friedman, as he would have been 103 years old if he were still living today.

Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in economics, specifically for “his achievements in the field of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.”

He served as an advisor to President Nixon in the White House and was the president of the American Economic Association before becoming a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Friedman was known for his defense of the free market and call for school choice through a voucher programs.

To honor this great man, here are 22 of his most notable quotes regarding the economy, government, and life.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
“The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.”
“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
“There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
“I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstance and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
“If all we want are jobs, we can create any number—for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs—jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.”
“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”
“When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in theSoviet Union—like public housing in the United States—look decrepit within a year or two of their construction.”
“Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”
“The lack of balance in governmental activity reflects primarily the failure to separate sharply the question what activities it is appropriate for government to finance from the question what activities it is appropriate for government to administer—a distinction that is important in other areas of government activity as well.”
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
“Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy.”
“I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.”
“The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.”
“Underlying most arguments against the free marketis a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“I think that the Internet is going to be one of themajor forces for reducing the role of government.”
“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
“Inflation is taxation without legislation.”
“Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”

Via: Daily Signal

Bill O'Reilly: Gov't Killing People Over Traffic Stops, But Ignoring Federal Laws

Recently two Americans wound up dead after traffic stops.

In Texas, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was stopped when she failed to signal while changing lanes. She was taken into custody where she allegedly committed suicide.

In Ohio, 43-year-old Samuel DuBose was shot dead by a police officer after being stopped for not having a license plate on the front end of his car.

The Ohio cop has been charged with murder. The Texas woman's case is being investigated by state authorities.

Talking Points does not know what precisely happened, so further comment will wait until the hard evidence is presented.

But the point is that laws -- no matter how trivial -- matter.

And we the people, including law enforcement, are expected to obey them … all of them.

Via: Real Clear Politics

[VIDEO] Krauthammer: Debate Is Going To Be All About Trump

MEGYN KELLY, KELLY FILE: An aide to Governor John Kasich (R-OH) came out and said [the upcoming FOX News Republican debate] is like a NASCAR driver mentally preparing for a race knowing one of the drivers will be drunk. You don't know what to expect.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, if you want to put it slightly more kindly, you could have just said erratic and unpredictable but everybody knows that in the lead-up to this debate it's going to be all about Trump. That will be the story, no matter what happens, otherwise in the debate that will be the story that's going to be carried out by the media. That's going to be the sound bite.

And the two questions are: will Trump act like a statesman or will he continue the anger and bluster show? And the second is: will anybody take him on, and who will it be? On the first I know he's getting advice from the media that he should play the statesman and that would propel him. I'm not sure that he's capable of doing that but assuming he is, I'm not sure that would be successful. He's had such incredible success with the bluster and the anger that he has tapped into that I suspect he'll continue on that.

The question is, will anybody challenge him? if you're a top-tier candidate, there's not that much advantage in doing that, particularly now early in the race. You get into a mud fight, the others will benefit rather than you. I suspect it could be somebody who is in the middle of the pack, say a number 9, 10, or 11 in any of the polls on the bubble of the debates, on the cusp, who might want to take him out in a way to be the dragon slayer and perhaps the candidate for that would be Rick Perry who took him on the most strongly after his remarks -- Trump's remarks about John McCain.

Via: Real Clear Videos

Obama set to announce steeper emissions cuts from US power plants

President Barack Obama will impose steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.

The Obama administration is expected to finalize the rule at a White House event on Monday, a year after proposing unprecedented carbon dioxide limits. Obama, in a video posted on Facebook, said the limits were backed up by decades of data and facts showing that without tough action, the world will face more extreme weather and escalating health problems like asthma.

"Climate change is not a problem for another generation," Obama said. "Not anymore."

Initially, Obama had mandated a 30 percent nationwide cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The final version, which follows extensive consultations with environmental groups and the energy industry, will require a 32 percent cut instead, according to White House officials.

Opponents said they would sue the government immediately. The also planned to ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out.

The steeper version also gives states an additional two years to comply, officials said, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. The new deadline is set for 2022. States will also have until 2018 instead of 2017 to submit their plans for how they intend to meet their targets.

The focus on renewables marks a significant shift from the earlier proposal that sought to accelerate the ongoing shift from coal-fired power to natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix the same as it is now.

The stricter limits included the final plan were certain to incense energy industry advocates who had already balked at the more lenient limits in the proposed plan. However, the Obama administration said its tweaks would cut energy costs and address concerns about power grid reliability.

The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.

In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama's plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.

By clamping down on power plant emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he's seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005. Other major polluting nations have also stepped up including China, which pledged to halt its growth in emissions by 2030 despite an economy that's still growing.

Power plants account for at least one-third of all emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming in the U.S. Obama’s rule assigns customized targets for each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet their targets.

More than a dozen states have already made plans to fight the rule, even before it was revealed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has urged some Republican governors to refuse to comply, setting up a confrontation with the EPA, which by law can force its own plan on states that fail to submit implementation plans.

Yet in those states, power companies and local utilities have started preparing to meet those targets. New, more efficient plants are replacing older ones have already pushed emissions down nearly 13 percent since 2005.

In Congress, lawmakers have sought to use legislation to stop Obama's regulation, and McConnell has tried previously to use an obscure, rarely successful maneuver under the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to vote it down.

The more serious threat to Obama's rule will likely come in the courts. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents energy companies, said 20 to 30 states were poised to join with industry in suing over the rule.

The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court ruled against 15 states and a coal company that tried to block the power plant rule before it was finalized. The Supreme Court has also affirmed Obama's authority to regulate pollution crossing state lines and to use the decades-old Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases — the legal underpinning for the power plant rule.

But the high court in June ruled against his mercury emissions limits, arguing the EPA failed to properly account for costs. Federal courts have also forced Obama to redo other clean air standards that industry groups complained were too onerous.

With the end of Obama's presidency drawing nearer, his climate efforts have become increasingly entangled in the next presidential election. The power plant rule won't go into effect until long after Obama leaves office, putting its implementation in the hands of his successor. Among other Republican critics, 2016 candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has said he would drastically scale down the EPA if elected and shift most of its duties to state regulators.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Monday, August 3, 2015

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Popular Posts