EPA declares hay a pollutant in effort to drive small, mid-sized family cattle ranchers out of business

Comments Off

You just couldn’t make this stuff up….No, this is not a joke….wish it was………

The assault against American industry and individual livelihood continues — and no, it is not coming from Al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. A recent report from R-CALF USA, an advocacy group for American cattle producers, says the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared harmless cattle hay a “pollutant,” which is part of the agency’s agenda to squelch family-scale cattle ranches in favor of corporately-owned, mega-sized feedlot operations.

At the recent 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention in Rapid City, SD, an audience member asked Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder, if the EPA had, indeed, declared hay a pollutant. His affirmative answer was startling to many, but not necessarily surprising in light of the US government’s apparent agenda to destroy every single producing sector in the nation and to reduce the country to a poverty-stricken, corporately-dominated wasteland.
Hay Bales

“Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” responded Callicrate. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”

“EPA is turning a blind eye toward the mega-feedlots that are a real risk for pollution and, instead, is antagonizing small to mid-sized family operations in an effort to help their packer-partners capture the entire live cattle supply chain away from family farm and ranch operations.”

Sources for this story include:

http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/…

Read more @ Natural News

Voters Think President Obama is More Liberal Than They Are

Comments Off

 

Who ARE These Republicans?
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveyfinds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters think President Obama is more liberal than they are.  In early June, 54% felt the president was more liberal than they are.  Prior to the latest survey, the number of voters who feel this way has ranged from 54% to 61%. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just 15% feel the president is politically more conservative than they are, the highest level measured to date. Twenty-six percent (26%) believe the president’s ideology is about the same as their own.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans think the president is more liberal than they are. Among Democrats, a plurality (49%) say they share a similar ideology to the president, 26% say he is more conservative than they are, and 20% say he is more liberal. A majority (55%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party believe the president is more liberal than they are.

We’re Enabling a Future American Dictator

Comments Off

As crazy as this may sound to some, Ron Paul is correct. With Congress and the Senate poised to give the President sole authority to go to war anywhere in the world when he wants to without their approval. Among other things the executive branch has been doing skirting the Constitution Ron Paul is right.

These are truly troubling days for liberty in the United States.

Last week the 60 day deadline for the president to gain congressional approval for our military engagement in Libya under the War Powers Resolution came and went. The media scarcely noticed.  The bombings continued.  We had a hearing on Capitol Hill on the subject, but the administration refuses to bother with the legality of its new war.  It is unclear if Mr. Obama will ever obtain congressional consent, and astonishingly it is being argued that he doesn’t need it.

Ron Paul: We Are Enabling A Future American Dictatorship 310511RP2

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution begs to differ.  It clearly states that the power to declare war rests within the legislative branch – the branch closest to the people.  The founders were a war-weary people, and the requirement that it would take an act of Congress to go to war was intentional.  They believed war was not to be entered into lightly, so they resisted granting such decision making authority to one person. They objected to absolute warmaking power granted to Kings. It would be incredibly naïve to think a dictator could not or would not wrest power in this country. 

Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment; ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; and treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-rays.

Americans who are not alarmed by all of this are either not paying close attention, or are too trusting of current government officials to be concerned.  Those in power right now might be trustworthy, upstanding people.  But what of the leaders of the future?  They will inherit all the additional powers we cede to the current position holders.  Can we trust that they will not take advantage?  Today’s best intentions create loopholes and opportunities for tomorrow’s tyrants.

Perhaps the most troubling power grab of late is the mission creep associated with the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Initiated as targeted strikes against the perpetrators of 9/11, a decade later we are still at war.  With whom?  Last week Congress passed a Defense Authorization bill with some very disturbing language that explicitly extends the president’s war powers to just about anybody.  Section 1034 of that bill states that we are at war with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated forces.  Who are the associated forces?  It also includes anyone who has supported hostilities in aid of an organization that substantially supports these associated forces.  This authorization is not limited by geography, and it has no sunset provision.  It doesn’t matter if these associated forces are American citizens.  Your constitutional rights no longer apply when the United States is “at war” with you.  Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?

My colleague Congressman Justin Amash spearheaded an effort to have this troubling language removed, but unfortunately it failed by a vote of 234 to 187.  It is unfortunate indeed, that so many in Congress accept unlimited warmaking authority in the hands of the executive branch.

Paul.House.gov

Some comments below at his website:

Thank you, Congressman Paul, for being a true leader for the American people. Regardless of our citizens’ lackadaisical approach to very real threats, those of us who are awake are with you and appreciate your never-ending and determined support of our freedom and the Constitution!

We have no reason to continue with wars, although many get rich from wars. We in the United States are oppressed by our own government over a simple thing as healthcare. Our entire government needs to be replaced by people of vision like our forfathers intended. We have lost faith in our government, Republican leaders want social security to go away because they can’t afford it. That would be murdering our own people, you have given America a bad name & we remember yours. I’m for Recall of all that wants war & removing our healthcare. Beware of those that vote you in will vote out also. Understand the point.

Tomorrows tirants don’t feel that far away to me.
Thank you Ron Paul for giving warning to people. I hope they listen

Obama Praises Brazilian Oil Industry While He Blocks Drilling Here at Home

Comments Off

This is ridiculous….we are dependent on foreign oil because we won’t drill our own oil! I hear a program the other day from a man in Alaska that said they had enough shale oil and natural gas to last no telling how long for the US. And now Obama wants the US to buy huge amounts from Brazil?

President Obama’s speech to a  conference in Brazil where, Obama said the U.S. was anxious to supply technical assistance to Brazil as the South American country develops huge offshore oil reserves. (what? I thought Obama was against off shore drilling, he put a moratorium on the US and forbids it!) Longer term, Obama said the U.S. would become a good customer for Brazilian oil.

But, while Obama praised Brazilian energy production he continues to stifle energy production here at home.
Big Government reported:

To be fair, President Obama is in favor of drilling…but just not in the United States.

His numerous bans, restrictions, and proposed taxes are hamstringing America’s ability to produce more oil and gas and are thereby increasing gas and diesel prices. In fact, even the federal government projects that domestic oil production will drop by 220,000 barrels per day in 2011 due to the President’s anti-drilling agenda. Production in 2012 will drop even more…

Obama Praises Brazilian Oil Industry While He Blocks Drilling Here at Home

At least 7 oil rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world since President Obama initiated his moratorium last year.

President Obama defended his trip to Latin America today in an editorial at USA Today. He also praised the expanding Brazilian offshore oil industry.

We’ll also work to strengthen our relationship when it comes to energy. Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours, and as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership. We’ll also continue our shared leadership in green economic growth and clean energy, including everything from biofuels to renewables such as wind and solar power. And as the host of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics, Brazil is expected to invest more than $200 billion in upgrading its infrastructure — an area where America is primed to be a partner.

That’s strange.
This is the same president who has declared war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production since the first day he moved into the White House.

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

It’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling.

This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

Gateway Pundit

Did the Founding Fathers Give Unlimited Power to Government

Comments Off

Here’s some amazing info about the founding fathers and our current president’s czars.

Obama, Not Egypt, is Biggest Threat to U.S. Energy Prices

Comments Off

This is an interesting article, that goes on to explain that President Obama’s policies are more of a threat to rising US energy prices than the Middle East. Of course that’s no surprise to those of us watching Obama’s policies, like putting a moratorium on deep sea drilling when the experts said that wasn’t needed and would hurt the US economy.

Obama, Not Egypt, is Biggest Threat to U.S. Energy Prices

Last Friday on a conference call with reporters about the Obama Administration’s long-term energy proposals, Energy Secretary Steven Chu responded to a question about the situation in Egypt, saying: “Certainly any disruption in the Middle East means a partial disruption in the oil we import. It’s a world market and [a disruption] could actually have real harm of the price. The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply.” This is a nice sentiment. Unfortunately, everything the Obama Administration is doing is only increasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Secretary Chu is right: Oil does sell on a world market. But transportation and other distribution factors do segment oil markets somewhat. In fact, the United States is currently paying about $10 less for a barrel of oil than European and Asian nations are. Why? Because of U.S. access to oil refined from Canadian oil sands. Access to these vast natural resources is a great diversification of our oil supply. But now the Obama Administration is trying to make it harder for American consumers to get Canadian oil. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency is stonewalling approval for the Keystone pipeline, which would increase the amount of oil the U.S. receives from Canada by over a million barrels per day. And that is not the only oil the Obama Administration is trying to keep out of American consumers’ hands.

Offshore, the Obama Interior Department has blocked access to 19 billion barrels of oil in the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico—and another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast. Onshore, federal leasing of oil and gas exploration in the western United States has dropped significantly in the past two years. According to data compiled by the Western Energy Alliance, the Bureau of Land Management offered 79 percent fewer leases for oil and natural gas development in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming in 2010 than in 2005. And then there is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie beneath a few thousand acres that can be accessed with minimal environmental impact.

Allowing Americans to develop these resources could easily produce at least 1 million new barrels of oil a day. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that, if the United States managed to increase its domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day, it would create an additional 128,000 jobs and generate $7.7 billion in economic activity.

As bad as these existing energy policies are, President Obama’s planned energy policies are even worse. Today, the President is meeting with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D–NM) to plot passage of a clean energy standard (CES) bill. CES is just another cap-and-trade, energy-tax-like policy, except it’s all cap and no trade. A CES would mandate that all electricity providers generate a certain percentage of energy from carbon-free sources. Just like cap and trade, this policy is fundamentally just an energy tax that would drive up everyone’s electricity prices. Ironically, this would make electric vehicles even more expensive to operate, but we’re sure the Obama Administration would offer another round of taxpayer-funded subsidies to fix that problem.

Government policies that ban economically feasible energy development while subsidizing economically unsustainable ones only raise energy costs rather than lowering them. What the U.S. economy really needs is a truly free-market energy approach, one that includes (1) real nuclear energy reform, not more loan guarantees; (2) predictable and sensible coal regulations; (3) reduced regulation on renewable energy; (4) an end to all energy subsidies; and (5) common-sense limits to environmental litigation.

Congress should not let unrest in the Middle East scare them into energy policies that would make all our energy only more expensive. More bans on energy development, more subsidies for economically unproven technologies, and expensive new alternative energy production mandates are not the answer. America needs a true free-market approach to energy, and we need it now.

blog.heritage.com

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

Comments Off

This article lists the top 10 Constitutional violations by Obama and Pelosi and friends the last two years, it is by no means all of them.

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.(That’s because no one will stand up to them, not even Congress or the Senate)

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.

#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.

#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.

#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.

#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

#4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is …


#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:

For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines.

Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article 1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must think it can change the Constitution without amending it — a violation of Article 5, which outlines the amendment process.

The health care bill also violates the 10th Amendment because it coerces states into complying with a new national program that reaches far into state jurisdiction.

So, what do you do when you’re navigating through a blizzard of political white-out where visibility is reduced to zero, the road is slick and slippery, and disaster is strewn about in all directions? You come to a complete stop — and put on the chains.

Paul B. Skousen is a former analyst for the CIA, an intelligence officer in the Reagan White House, and staffer for Senator Orrin Hatch.

Daily Caller

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers