EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule

Chalk one up for the good guys, even if the media is trying to portray the rule as being all about “pollution”

(The Hill)  The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.

The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, say it’s among the costliest regulations ever issued.

The EPA estimated its rule, which took effect for some plants in April, would cost $9.6 billion, produce between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits and prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma cases annually.

But the agency concluded that its regulatory impact analysis should have “no bearing on” the determination of whether regulations are appropriate, as set forth in the Clean Air Act.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.”

While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.”

The reality of the EPA regulation is that it was about reigning in, and eliminating, coal power plants and stopping “climate change”, not any sort of real protection from real pollutants (funny thing is, these same Warmists aren’t concerned with mercury poisoning from Compact Fluorescent Lighbulbs). The EPA has become an advocacy group for the Cult of Climastrology, and is more interested in accumulating, and using, power for their narrow agenda, rather than any real concern over the environment. The pollutants are important to remove, but, the EPA has to follow the law in designing them, so, this SCOTUS ruling gives the EPA a chance to come up with the rules in a proper manner, rather than a targeted political one.

There’s some serious liberal hand-wringing and insanity going on at the Washington Post, as well as other leftist outlets. See, they are allowed to get upset over a ruling they disagree with. Conservatives, on the other hand, are just supposed to accept ruling not in our favor as “settled.” Wait till the Warmists lose when the 30% reduction in greenhouse gases rules are knocked down. Then they’ll really be upset.

Read: EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule »

If All You See…

…is a horrible rubber wheel made with fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on calling it on Greece.

Read: If All You See… »

Salon: Catholics Reject Pope On Hotcoldwetdry As They Now Worship The Free Economy

Funny, cause Warmists reject the Pope because he doesn’t support abortion on demand, which was also mentioned in the same position paper in which Pope Francis yammered on about “climate change”. The same one which also told people they essentially needed to give up fossil fuels and go carbon neutral, otherwise they were immoral.

Why Catholic Americans are rejecting the Pope: They worship the free market now

Why are white Catholics rejecting the climate consensus even as they have become increasingly progressive on other hot-button issues like same-sex marriage? As this graph from evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education shows, it’s not a simple matter of Catholics rejecting science like Evangelicals. Rosenau plotted various religious groups’ support for environmental regulations against their support for evolution based on data from the Pew Research Center. In general, he found that “groups that support evolution also support environmental action.” Catholics, however, fall somewhere in the middle of the science and environmental regulation-supporting Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and liberal Protestants, and the conservative Evangelical and Black churches that largely reject both evolution and climate change regulation.

A 2013 study from Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues offers some insight in the particular Catholic rejection of climate change. They found that religious individuals with a strong belief in a free-market ideology were likely to reject “scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues.”

In other words, white Catholics don’t accept the scientific consensus on climate change because it clashes with their other god: the free market.

First, so many of Lewandosky’s papers have been debunked and delinked as the perfection of junk science. Second, is Warmist Patricia Miller at Salon telling us that climate change belief and free markets are incompatible? Of course she is. Members of the Cult of Climastrology are against free markets. Well, for Everyone Else except themselves, of course. Consider that the Pope has recruited Naomi Klein, a “ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism”, to “shift the debate on climate change”. Klein is one of the few Warmists who actually tells the truth, namely that one of the goals is to create a far left economic system, doing away with capitalism and free markets.

Oh, and Patricia Miller is the author of “Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Church”, a book which is about the pro-choice movement towards the Catholic Church. So, she’s ignoring what the Pope has said on abortion.

Read: Salon: Catholics Reject Pope On Hotcoldwetdry As They Now Worship The Free Economy »

Surprise: Deal Would Eliminate Inspection Of Iranian Nuclear Sites

Trust but verify cross your fingers

(Israel National News) The P5+1 countries led by the United States under Barack Obama have caved in to Iranian demands and will not insist on inspections of nuclear installations as part of a deal on Iran;s nuclear weapons program, Channel 1 reported Sunday.

The channel’s Arab affairs correspondent reported that the June 30 – Tuesday night – deadline for the talks has been set back to an unspecified date but that the negotiations are good natured and the feeling is that the deal is nearly done.

Capitulation to a hardcore Islamist regime, hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and controlling the Middle East.

Obama wanted a deal no matter what, no matter how bad it is for the West and Israel, so he could say “I got a deal!” The terms have been dictated by the Iranians, and the only country that had held tough was France (think on that one!). If there are to be no inspections, what, exactly, is the point of any deal?

Read: Surprise: Deal Would Eliminate Inspection Of Iranian Nuclear Sites »

Where Will The Gay Marriage Agenda End?

The same sex marriage social justice warriors will tell us that religious folks have absolutely nothing to worry about! That a decrease of religious liberty will never happen!

Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay marriage ruling

Now that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, religious conservatives are focusing on preserving their right to object. Their concerns are for the thousands of faith-based charities, colleges and hospitals that want to hire, fire, serve and set policy according to their religious beliefs, notably that gay relationships are morally wrong.

The Republican Party’s 2016 presidential candidates are already campaigning on the issue. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is urging President Barack Obama and the nation’s governors “to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”

The religious liberty fight isn’t about what happens inside the sanctuary. First Amendment protections for worship and clergy are clear. Potential conflicts could arise, however, over religious organizations with some business in the public arena. That category ranges from small religious associations that rent reception halls to the public, to the nation’s massive network of faith-based social service agencies that receive millions of dollars in government grants. Some groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also want protections for individual business owners who consider it immoral to provide benefits for the same-sex spouse of an employee or cater gay weddings.

Are 1st Amendment protections that clear? It sure doesn’t seem so. Could there be a law passed and/or a court ruling that forces churches to marry gays? The Danes passed a law in 2012 requiring all churches to perform gay marriages, though the priests/pastors can refuse to perform the ceremony themselves. The church must find a replacement to perform the ceremony if they do object, though.

In 2014, a uber-rich gay couple sued to force their church to perform a marriage ceremony for them. I’m not finding a ruling on the suit yet, but, consider these lines

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. While same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.K. after a bill cleared Parliament earlier this year, the legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.

Churches can opt out of performing same sex marriages, while other religious groups cannot. They want to change that, and force churches to perform the ceremonies, because they aren’t getting what they want. They feel they ” have the right as parishioners in our village to utilise the church we attend to get married.” What the church feels is obviously of no consequence. But, hey, that’s England and Denmark. They don’t have the same protections as we do, right?

In Canada, “Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, was questioned about instances when religious liberty and homosexual “rights” conflict.  She stated that she would have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Right now, people of belief can be forced to give up their religious liberty to accommodate the gay agenda. Baking cakes, catering gay weddings, even performing them if not a fully recognized church can be forced compliance. Or, deal with legal penalties, including from the government.

But in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted a clash ahead between religious freedom and same-sex marriage. He specifically noted the dilemma for religious colleges that provide married student housing, and adoption agencies that won’t place children with gay couples.

“There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court,” Roberts wrote.

Yes, they will. The agenda will never end. Forced compliance under penalty of law for those with religious conviction, because the SSM crowd can’t just accept their win gracefully. They always want more.

Alito noted the high court’s 1983 decision to revoke the tax-exemption of Bob Jones University in South Carolina because it barred interracial dating. Alito asked if the government would take such action against religiously affiliated schools that oppose same-sex marriage. Verrilli said, “It is certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that.”

Liberals are already very upset over the tax free status of churches, and will be coming after it, as well as anything else that stands for religious liberty. You will be made to care. And comply.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Where Will The Gay Marriage Agenda End? »

Good News: Warmists Can Now Confess Their Climate Sins

It’s much less expensive than simply purchasing carbon offsets to assuage their guilty consciences. And really, really cheaper than changing their lives to match their beliefs

(Grist) You know the feeling of Climate Guilt: When you know what you’re about to do (or, more likely, have already done) is wrong, and you just can’t help yourself. Or even if you don’t know if it’s wrong, you strongly suspect that it is — after all, every breath you take is a carbon emission.

You order that burger. You board the flight to Italy. You toss your water bottle in the trash can because you cannot, for the life of you, find a goddamn recycling bin in your supposedly progressive city. But who’s counting?

The planet is, you asshole.

That wasn’t helpful, I’m sure! But this is: A place to safely confess your transgressions, and be absolved. The Adaptors, a podcast showcasing the weird tales of climate change adaptation, have your back:


Get right with the Mother (Earth) … or at least make yourself feel a teensy bit better. Call the hotline.

Read: Good News: Warmists Can Now Confess Their Climate Sins »

If All You See…

…is a horrendous fossil fueled boat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on NYC Muslims mad they have to follow the law.

It’s rebel flag bikini week. Why? I really don’t care that much about the flag, but, freedom is important, fascism and thought control are rampant from the left, and this will surely annoy them.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! A great day in America. The Sun is shining, the bunnies are eating my neighbors veggie garden, no t-storms on tap here in Raleigh. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Viking Pundit discusses SCOTUS’ voting block
  2. American Power notes CNN’s idiocy on an “ISIS” flag
  3. The Other McCain notes bank accounts being drained in Greece
  4. Jo Nova discusses Greenland being much warmer in the past than it is now
  5. 1389 Blog notes Walmart will allow ISIS cakes, but not Confederate flag cakes
  6. Blazing Cat Fur notes that Lefties do now actually want racial healing
  7. Chicks On The Right notes what happened to freedoms in Canada after gay marriage was legalized (probably should be part of the previous post, oh, well)
  8. Dakota Voice covers pro-gay speech code enforcement
  9. Fausta’s Blog notes the bloody Islamist Friday
  10. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes what our military members had to do for Ramadan
  11. Gates Of Vienna covers the Islamization of Europe
  12. Lady Liberty 1885 notes something essential to free society
  13. Moonbattery has a helpful suggestion for liberals
  14. Pamela Geller notes what’s happening in “moderate” Indonesia
  15. And last, but not least, Patterico has a quick, but deep, thought on dignity

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

CNN: It’s No Longer Legal To Talk About Gays They Way We Used To

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed Justice Scalia’s dissent in a prior case, and stated what Leftist are surely thinking about anyone discussing gays in a negative manner. This comes via the transcript at Newsbusters

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Blistering dissent, Jake (Tapper), but it’s very different. And I think, if you want illustrations of how much the country has changed in the past decade or so, you need only look at Justice Scalia because in 2003, in the case of Lawrence V. Texas, he also dissented, another Anthony Kennedy opinion. And that was the case that said gay people could not be criminally prosecuted for having sex. And listen to this, what Justice Scalia wrote in 2003. He said:

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

I mean, really, just outward bigotry against gay people. Now, today Justice Scalia begins his dissenting opinion by saying this issue is of no particular importance to me, and the only real issue here is the democratic process, who makes the decisions. Should it be the courts? Or should it be the people?

Even Justice Scalia, who is the biggest social conservative on the court, he cannot talk the way he used to talk about gay people because culturally, politically, even legally, it’s simply not appropriate, and even legal in many, in ways to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.

This may have been directed specifically at Justice Scalia, but, think about it: you have the senior legal analyst at Leftist CNN stating that a Supreme Court justice cannot legally speak his mind anymore, vis a vis gays, essentially criminalizing Free Speech and dissent. It’s more than censorship of free speech under the guise of “hate” speech. Think it’s not coming? Who would have thought the Supreme Court would override the votes of citizens in states who were against gay marriage being legal just 5 years ago? Who would have thought bakers would be fined out the wazoo for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to their religious belief just 5 years ago? Liberals have long been working hard to criminalize “hate”: think they won’t attempt to criminalize speech they don’t like?

If you think that I’m still being a bit over the top, consider what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, via Chicks On The Right, noting this article by Dawn Stefanowicz

Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

You can be reported the Canadian Human Rights Commissions And Tribunals. They can come into your home to gather material, and it can cost tens of thousands in legal fees. The accusers have their legal fees paid by the government. Even saying that marriage is between a man and a women is considered hate speech and verboten.

Meanwhile, Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins discusses a notion I brought up the other day

Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.

Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Now the question–Are 2nd Amendment rights among those “protected by this Clause”?

If we take the SCOTUS at its word, then yes, 2nd Amendment rights are protected under the 14th Amendment. After all, it was by viewing 2nd Amendment rights as incorporated under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down Chicago’s gun ban inMcDonald v Chicago (2010).

The Constitution also requires reciprocity in Article 4, Section 1: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Combine that with the 14th and this court ruling, and States should be required to respect and recognize legal gun permits, the same as they must respect gay marriage licenses.

Of course, equal protection under the law only applies to things Liberals like.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: CNN: It’s No Longer Legal To Talk About Gays They Way We Used To »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fuels pump, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Capitalism Is Freedom, with a post that sums up economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Bad Behavior has blocked 19044 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE