Obama’s Climate Hubris Scales New Heights

by Betsy McCaughey                                                              
 
This week President Obama is hailing his Clean Power Plan as “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.”

Obama is posing as the environment’s savior, just as he did in 2008, when he promised his presidency would mark “the moment when . . . the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Seven years later, that messianic legacy is in doubt.

Obama’s Clean Power Plan has never had legislative support, even when his own party controlled both houses of Congress. Now he’s trying to impose it without Congress, an audacious ploy his old Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe condemns as “burning the Constitution.”

As his presidency wanes, Obama is desperately burnishing his eco-credentials with environmental zealots like Pope Francis and the leftists at the U.N. and in the European Union. But here at home, his plan would be a disaster economically, which explains its failure in Congress.

Hillary Clinton is pledging to support the plan, while Republicans vying for their party’s presidential nomination are vowing to oppose it. The Clean Power Plan will be a fiercely debated issue in coal-consuming swing states like Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania – where the race for the White House is usually decided.

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is imposing the Clean Power Plan on all 50 states, requiring each state to close down coal-burning electric plants, and shift to other sources of electricity – natural gas burning plants, nuclear plants, solar and wind power generators – in order to reduce carbon emissions by one-third.

Nationwide, about 40 percent of electric power is produced by coal plants. Forcing these utilities to close will burn consumers with higher electric bills. It will also send hundreds of thousands of jobs a year up in smoke, as employers pay more to operate their businesses, according to Heritage Foundation economists.

And for what? The purported benefit is to avoid an imperceptible 0.02 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by the year 2100. That’s the official EPA estimate of the benefits of this Clean Air Plan. You must be kidding.

That’s what as many as 25 governors are saying, and they are expected to file a lawsuit challenging the plan. They’ve got a strong case. Although the EPA bases its authority on the Clean Air Act of 1970, nothing in that law authorizes the agency to do more than require plants to use the best available technology – like scrubbers – to reduce emissions.

Congress never authorized the EPA to force states to close coal plants and move on to nuclear, or wind and solar. “The brute fact is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system,” says Tribe. “It does not.”

Defenders of the president’s environmental agenda say he has to act alone because the Congress is gridlocked. That’s untrue. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are against the plan, and for good reasons.

Obama’s EPA has tried several end-runs around Congress, creatively interpreting the 45-year-old Clean Air Act to suit its agenda. 

But it hasn’t always gotten away with it. In a stinging U.S. Supreme Court rebuke against the administration’s restrictions on mercury emissions, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “it is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs” when the benefits are so uncertain.

The same could be said for the plan announced on Monday. Defenders of the new regulation predict falling energy costs from renewable sources, but so far that is pie in the sky speculation. Like the president’s prediction that the average family would save $2,500 because of Obamacare.

But long before the Supreme Court weighs in on this new plan, presidential politics is likely to determine its fate. Another example of how high the stakes are in 2016.

Betsy McCaughey is a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Analysis and best-selling author of Beating Obamacare. 

Thirty-One States Fight Clean Water Rule

(CN) – Attorneys general from 31 states asked the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to delay implementation of a Clean Water Act rule for at least 9 nine months for judicial review.

The rule defines “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The states claim it asserts federal jurisdiction over streams, wetlands and other water bodies previously considered to be under state jurisdiction.

The EPA cited the need for clean drinking water and clean water as an economic driver as the impetus for its new rule, and Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 in which justices disagreed about which waters were covered by the Act.

“About 117 million Americans – one in three people – get drinking water from streams that lacked clear protection before the Clean Water Rule,” the EPA said in a May 27 statement about the new rule. “The health of our rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters are impacted by the streams and wetlands where they begin.”

Read more…

Local Governments Now Being Nationalized

In what appears to be adherence to the goals of the Rockefellers, Obama and his community organizer mentors hold the view that the cities suffer because of taxpayer flight to the suburbs.

This past week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a long and convoluted final rule, entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”. This rule sets out the new terms and conditions which all local governments will be required to meet if they receive federal funds to advance their local housing programs.

Every state county or municipality organization should think long and hard before taking a dime in HUD money. Otherwise, they face the feds schemes of forced integration and redistribution of the wealth.

Read more…

Using racism and ecology as excuses, Obama is orchestrating, through HUD and the EPA, the end of local government rule…
http://www.independentsentinel.com/suburban-governments-were-just-nationalized-by-the-federal-government/

http://www.independentsentinel.com/hud-will-force-illegal-immigrants-on-neighborhoods/

Massive Government Overreach: Obama‚s AFFH Rule Is Out
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420896/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz

The ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America’s Neighborhoods
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/the_fundamental_transformation_of_americas_neighborhoods.html

Obama’s Endgame
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/obamas_endgame.html

The Folly Of “Fair” Housing
http://www.hoover.org/research/folly-fair-housing

Networks Censor Obama’s Assault On Suburbs
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071315-761398-big-media-punt-on-covering-hud-plan-to-diversify-suburbs.htm

UN Housing Goals a Threat to Freedom

Just in case you still wondered what the unelected boards known as Regional Planning Commissions were doing in NH…

As we have written about before, Obama hopes that by imposing the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” Rule he can social engineer your neighborhood.

A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country. “HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”

However, we maintain that HUD cannot simply make a ‘rule’ such as this without congressional approval.

HUD’s ‘rule’ is rooted in the UN’s push for Agenda 21 goals under the guise of ‘sustainability’.

But the idea that an ad hoc NGO such as “Placemaking” which comes out of the UN would have any say in how our cities are built is preposterous. Nevertheless, they hold conference after conference, compiling endless decrees about how countries must comply with their utopian ideas of where and how people should live.

The United Nations Habitat conference on housing and sustainability (Habitat III) is one such conference. The UN says this conference “will set the goals and pace for place making in developed and developing countries…”

These decrees can be seen in numerous documents such as the 2016-2030 Sustainable Development Goals which aims to ‘to provide by 2030 universal access to universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible green spaces and public spaces’.


“…the UN Habitat III preparation papers suggest, this ‘involves a systematic (re)distribution of the benefits of growth or development with the legal frameworks that ensure a level playing field’.”

Read what one of these ad hoc NGOs has to say:
http://newstartmag.co.uk/your-blogs/placemaking-must-be-framed-by-fairness-and-equity/

Most thinking people believe that the UN has no right to tell people in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter) how, where, or with whom we can live. It’s called FREEDOM which seems to be a concept that is totally lost on these unelected agents of Agenda 21.

Tom DeWeese Praises Rindge

DeWeese praises defeat of ‘master plan’ in Rindge

Tom DeWeese spoke to the Rindge-Jaffrey-Fitzwilliam Republican Committee about how the group “Save Our Town Rindge” fought back against HUD’s agenda promoted within the ‘master plan’ that had been recommended by the regional planning commission.

If the above video does not appear on your device, use this direct link:
https://youtu.be/jxlkx58SJP0

The Nancy Pelosi video he refers to at the beginning of the talk is available at the bottom of the front page of our main website at http://www.granitestatefutures.org

Stop Funding Federal HUD Goals

If you want to stop regionalism, you MUST stop this!!!

The current federal transportation bill will expire on July 31, 2015. In the coming weeks Congress will negotiate about dozens of programs and debate how to fund billions of dollars worth of projects. What will the current political landscape mean for local transportation projects, Complete Streets, and transit-oriented development?

Read more… http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/2015/07/14/join-us-on-thursday-for-an-inside-look-at-transportation-reauthorization-in-congress/

Is VMT Tax Becoming a Reality?

VMT stands for Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Some localities and states are looking at this as another way to tax people based on their frequency of use of the roads.

What do you think? An extra tax or more fair way to tax driving?

Right now the program is voluntary and being capped at 5,000 participants, but an ODOT official told Fox News the ultimate goal is to make it mandatory and change the way states pay for roads — forever.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/03/oregon-launches-program-to-tax-drivers-by-mile/

Tom DeWeese to Speak on Dangers of Regionalism 7/13

Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center will be talking about the dangers of REGIONALISM and Agenda 21 at the Jaffrey-Rindge-Fitzwilliam GOP meeting July 13th, 7:30 PM at the Rindge Meeting House. All are welcome but SPACE IS LIMITED so please RSVP to info@granitestatefutures.org

If the above video does not appear on your device, use this direct link:
https://youtu.be/A_PdRsmZtAY

Come on out and learn about the American Policy Center. Tom is nationally known for his work fighting this “cancer” being pushed by the U.N.