BO Loses, The Public and Coal Miners WIN

It dawned on a UMW president of a local in WV that the Membership was losing jobs in WV, PA and OH. When looking for a culprit, it was the EPA overstepping its authority and creating “Regulations” that were not supported by the Clean Air Act. In short, the EPA was making its own laws outside of what Congress intended. Does this sound familiar in this lawless presidency? Anyway, the court ordered the regulations back to what they were. The struck down regulations that were B Hussein O’s way to circumvent Congress and make their own laws. Sorry BO, you’ve been caught red handed with your illegal power grab.

Court strikes down major pollution rule
By Ben Geman – 2012-08-21 11:55:00 AM ET THE HILL

View this article on The Hill at the link

A federal court has struck down an Environmental Protection Agency rule that forces cuts in soot- and smog-forming power plant emissions that cross state lines, dealing a major blow to the White House’s air quality agenda.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that forces cuts from plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the country, finding that it exceeds EPA’s powers under the Clean Air Act.

https://apps.facebook.com/thehillsocial/content/244531?code=AQBFHwUA-N-KxZz-dNWOGNT4QuxkHe-qqyiX6GByexe-SCNc8gNeZpAN3Xq26tWejsKTAQ1X29i5kEVY_RrFSCjji0dcVUv0_VmQR6Q9g_YtKx0yPIZdppWssscGecMq1E9Dxpu48Cf-iKbb8TWQpJ4rYshPALlxD0Ctyc6sEmlsIN-59c_vvv6G5AazgUreYNE#_=_

“or if not on Facebook”

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/244531-federal-court-nixes-major-epa-air-pollution-rule

15 Comments

  1. This is the Obama EPA, that will use any means necessary to bankrupt coal companies, coal fired power plants, and bring Texas’ success story to a screeching halt, whatever means necessary, including violating Federal Law to do it.

    Totalitarianism, fascist dictatorship, it’s what Democrats do, especially ones who call themselves “Progressives”. Everyone else knows them as the Socialists they absolutely are.

  2. The ruling by the DC Circuit Court correctly represents a technicality which must be addressed by Congress.

    That said, we must face the fact that serious health-related issues result from the emissions of coal burning power plants, emissions which impact the health of those who live downwind of these plants.

    We had such a case, though in-state here in DE, where efforts by citizen activists resulted in data showing health-related impacts (lung cancers) downwind of our coal-fired power plant. The result has been that the company, NRG, will be phasing out of operation two old and dirty units, putting more pollution controls on their two newer units, and plans to devote resources to alternate energy sources such as wind and solar.

    This represents a reversal in the NRG business model, in which prior to this agreement with our DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment), NRG opposed all efforts to clean up their act and to participate in alternative energy approaches to electrical power production, all this based on the efforts of activist citizens, of which I was one, btw.

  3. WW replied:

    The ruling by the DC Circuit Court correctly represents a technicality which must be addressed by Congress.

    Why must it be addressed by Congress? The current law is what the Congress which passed it wished it to be, and if it has not been amended subsequently, then it remains the will of the current Congress. Perhaps this Congress, or even the Congress before it, aren’t all that eager to pass legislation which would cost the coal industry — and the country at large — jobs.

    This, you see, is President Obama’s realThat said, we must face the fact that serious health-related issues result from the emissions of coal burning power plants, emissions which impact the health of those who live downwind of these plants.

    If coal burning power plants can be replaced by other technologies, at a reasonable cost, then it makes some sense to phase out coal-burning power plants, at the pace at which they can be replaced at a reasonable cost. But coal provides about 40% of all of the electricity used in this country, and we can’t be environmentalist whackos like Barack Hussein Obama stupid and just shut them down.

  4. WW wrote:

    This represents a reversal in the NRG business model, in which prior to this agreement with our DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment), NRG opposed all efforts to clean up their act and to participate in alternative energy approaches to electrical power production, all this based on the efforts of activist citizens, of which I was one, btw.

    So, if the price of electricity rises in the First State, the public can hold you responsible, right? How much money did you take out of some poor person’s pocket today?

  5. “So, if the price of electricity rises in the First State, the public can hold you responsible, right? How much money did you take out of some poor person’s pocket today?”

    A ridiculous statement here, hardly worth a response!

    “If coal burning power plants can be replaced by other technologies, at a reasonable cost, then it makes some sense to phase out coal-burning power plants, at the pace at which they can be replaced at a reasonable cost. But coal provides about 40% of all of the electricity used in this country, and we can’t be environmentalist whackos like Barack Hussein Obama stupid and just shut them down.”

    The “environmental whackos” are those who insist on the status quo when reliable data indicates a significant negative health impact on people. In the DE case I described, this was exactly the case. Considering only the corporate bottom line is what irresponsible business people do — that’s stupid!

    And show me where President Obama is calling for shutting anyone down immediately!

  6. The US Court of Appeals totally recognized the unlawful power grab by the EPA. The EPA Overstepped its authority here. It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about the outcome, the law said the EPA could go so far in regulations and STOP. B Hussein O’s EPA violated the law by ordering power plants to do more. If we remember, and I do, it was right before the elections B Hussein O said the following in the Youtube clip.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aTf5gjvNvo
    It appears B Hussein O promised to break the law then and has.

  7. Obama Advances Plan to “Bankrupt” Coal Industry With New CO2 Limits

    EPA will enforce disastrous measures by dictatorial fiat

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    Tuesday, March 27, 2012

    Barack Obama’s 2008 promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry is now coming to fruition with the EPA’s announcement of crippling CO2 emission limits on new plants that will effectively block the building of any new coal plants in the United States, accelerating the move towards total deindustrialization.

    “The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first ever standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, a move likely to be hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year,” reports Reuters.

    The enforcement of the new measures, which will force new plants to cut CO2 emissions by 50 per cent and also mandate investment in unaffordable technologies to bury carbon emissions underground, marks the realization of Obama’s 2008 promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry.

    During an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008 when he was still a Senator, Obama stated, “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

    Read the rest of how BO wants to destroy industry here:

    http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/

  8. Though I disagree with those who think that Obama would even consider the kind of openly tyrannical “crisis driven” power grab they moot as at least conceivable, it’s clear that the law means no more to this guy than it does to any other standard issue Marxist who sees it merely as the published edicts of the executive committee of a soon to be supplanted ruling class.

    And clearly there are a number of leftists in government who view democracy and republican forms of government as a kind of tool for implementing collectivism: useful at times, disposable otherwise.

    Constitutionalism of course, they are more openly hostile toward; and they often don’t mind saying so. Legal principles and legal limits get in the way of their “rule”.

    And by the way, does anyone remember Republican administrations ever announcing after they were voted into office that they were now “ruling”, and using language as if they were the sovereign power, rather than mere office holders? Another insight there, into the minds, so-called, of the current crop of leftists we have come to know and loathe.

    That’s what you get when dealing with a subspecies of hominid that recognizes no limits on what it may demand of you, or do to you; other than those it physically confronts when you literally shove back.

  9. DNW says:
    August 22, 2012 at 12:30

    Though I disagree with those who think that Obama would even consider the kind of openly tyrannical “crisis driven” power grab they moot as at least conceivable, it’s clear that the law means no more to this guy than it does to any other standard issue Marxist who sees it merely as the published edicts of the executive committee of a soon to be supplanted ruling class.

    You mean articles like this?: :-|

    http://visiontoamerica.com/11679/will-obama-peacefully-turn-over-power-if-he-loses-reelection/

  10. So, if the price of electricity rises in the First State, the public can hold you responsible, right? How much money did you take out of some poor person’s pocket today?

    The more relevant question is: How many coal miners’ jobs did Perry’s paranoid actions cost?

  11. Eric says:
    August 22, 2012 at 14:52

    So, if the price of electricity rises in the First State, the public can hold you responsible, right? How much money did you take out of some poor person’s pocket today?

    The more relevant question is: How many coal miners’ jobs did Perry’s paranoid actions cost?

    Energy & Environment
    Obama regulations kill Ohio coal mine, hundreds of jobs wiped out

    By: John Hayward
    8/1/2012 08:09 AM

    The OhioAmerican Energy company announced it would close its coal mine near Brilliant, Ohio on Tuesday. There is no question whatsoever about the reason for the shutdown, because the company made it abundantly clear in their press release, which I am reproducing in full below. President Obama will be campaigning in Ohio on Wednesday; perhaps someone will present him with a copy of this letter and ask for his thoughts.

    OhioAmerican Energy, Inc. (“OhioAmerican”), a Subsidiary of Murray Energy Corporation (“Murray Energy”), today announced the closure of its coal mining operations near Brilliant, Jefferson County, Ohio.

    Regulatory actions by President Barack Obama and his appointees and followers were cited as the entire reason. “Mr. Obama has already destroyed 83,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation in America,” said Mr. Michael T. W. Carey, Vice President of Government Affairs for Murray Energy. “Electric prices in the recent PJM Interconnection monthly auction were bid up 800 percent (8 times) for 2015-2016 because of this,” he added.

    More here: Also one of many articles queried on Google

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/01/obama-regulations-kill-ohio-coal-mine-hundreds-of-jobs-wiped-out/

  12. Yorkshire says:
    August 22, 2012 at 12:39

    DNW says:
    August 22, 2012 at 12:30

    Though I disagree with those who think that Obama would even consider the kind of openly tyrannical “crisis driven” power grab they moot as at least conceivable, it’s clear that the law means no more to this guy than it does to any other standard issue Marxist who sees it merely as the published edicts of the executive committee of a soon to be supplanted ruling class.

    You mean articles like this?: :-|

    http://visiontoamerica.com/11679/will-obama-peacefully-turn-over-power-if-he-loses-reelection/

    I guess that that’s the kind of “out there” speculation that would qualify. What I find really disturbing though, are things like this now infamous essay which purports to examine a hypothetical – just using certain names and terms for convenience’s sake you understand.

    The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman. He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard. The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly. He refuses to call out the National Guard. He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action. In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues. Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order. Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.

    The Department of Homeland Security responds to the governor’s request by asking for defense support to civil law enforcement. After the Department of Justice states that the conditions in Darlington and surrounding areas meet the conditions necessary to invoke the Insurrection Act, the President invokes it.

    (From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:

    § 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.

    § 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

    § 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

    By proclamation he calls on the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully within 15 days. There is no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. …”

    Note of course that the Governor could call out the militia, as he is legally authorized to do should circumstances warrant, but he is posited as reluctant to do so because of the sympathy many have for the as yet, non-violent action, and because of his own previous political alignments. The Governor, faced with those pesky The People, “has no room to maneuver”. Legal duty as he may or may not see it, or popularity? Which to chose?

    How do we find a way around this dilemma …. Oh! The feds! A private, and unofficial back channel message from the Gov to the old Prez, and the US Army moves in, all nice and legal like.

    Of course the Army cannot necessarily trust the local authorities either, but there are always work-arounds in situations like that.

    Yeah.

    These people, these public-trough-feeding statists, morally deconstructed bags of scheming appetite, are just aching to fire on American citizens; American citizens whose only crime is the crime of not needing … THEM.

    They will have you, or by Gaia, someone is gonna die.

    (Note: Kicked to moderation due to two or more links embedded Ys)

  13. DNW:
    Note of course that the Governor could call out the militia, as he is legally authorized to do should circumstances warrant, but he is posited as reluctant to do so because of the sympathy many have for the as yet, non-violent action, and because of his own previous political alignments. The Governor, faced with those pesky The People, “has no room to maneuver”. Legal duty as he may or may not see it, or popularity? Which to chose?

    How do we find a way around this dilemma …. Oh! The feds! A private, and unofficial back channel message from the Gov to the old Prez, and the US Army moves in, all nice and legal like.

    Of course the Army cannot necessarily trust the local authorities either, but there are always work-arounds in situations like that.

    Yeah.

    These people, these public-trough-feeding statists, morally deconstructed bags of scheming appetite, are just aching to fire on American citizens; American citizens whose only crime is the crime of not needing … THEM.

    They will have you, or by Gaia, someone is gonna die.

    I guess that’s why DHS bought 1.2 BILLION Rounds of ammo:

    TFSJ – What The “H” Is Going On??? Amended: DHS Is Buying An Additional 750 Million Rounds – WHY? (Moved to Top)

    http://www.journal14.com/2012/08/16/what-the-h-is-going-on/

  14. WW wrote:

    “So, if the price of electricity rises in the First State, the public can hold you responsible, right? How much money did you take out of some poor person’s pocket today?”

    A ridiculous statement here, hardly worth a response!

    I think it a very apt statement. You said that you were part of an activist movement:

    where efforts by citizen activists resulted in data showing health-related impacts (lung cancers) downwind of our coal-fired power plant. The result has been that the company, NRG, will be phasing out of operation two old and dirty units, putting more pollution controls on their two newer units, and plans to devote resources to alternate energy sources such as wind and solar.

    You have claimed responsibility for forcing NRG to phase out two working power plants, and spend more money on newer units, as well as pushing the company to “devote resources to alternate energy sources such as wind and solar.” Those things aren’t free; they all have costs involved, costs which must be passed on to the utility’s consumers.

    This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the environmentalist whackos. They can see that their proposals have costs involved — though they frequently misunderestimate those costs — and think that, well, they’re really a pittance, and somehow can’t seem to understand that those very poor people, the ones they claim to champion, the ones on whose side they tell us they are, just might not find those costs to be a pittance.

    How many gallons of milk can’t the poor people buy for their children due to those oh-so-minor cost increases? Maybe if you have the extra money to be able to afford an expensive hybrid SUV, you don’t think about those added costs, but if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, those costs are real, and not trivial.

    You’ve noted, many times, that you are absolutely dumbfounded that so many poor people would be conservatives, would vote for conservatives and Republicans. This is why: in your oh-so-noble advocacy of programs for the public good, you just can’t seem to understand that all of those programs cost money, and will cost the poor money just as much as anyone else, and the last thing that they need is your “we know what’s good for you” attitude that takes money out of their wallets, takes food off of their table, takes a present for their kids out from under the Christmas tree.

Comments are closed.