Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Economy, Energy, Free Markets, Freedom, Law, Politics, Regulation | Tags: President Barack Obama, The Environmental Protection Agency, The Supreme Court
On Tuesday the Supreme Court issued a stay that blocked the federal government from implementing a series of far-reaching environmental regulations that essentially crippled the entire coal industry. The rules were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of President Obama’s attempt to force America’s energy sector to reduce their carbon emissions to conform to the administration’s demands.
Once again acting on his “presidential authority,” the president was making laws that would close hundreds of coal-fired power plants, because the president believes that CO2 is a pollutant (it is not) and that CO2 is the cause of global warming (it is not). Mr. Obama was trying to set an example for other countries to do the same, to comply with the unenforceable agreement that came out of the Paris Climate Talks—COP21.
Because of a 5-4 majority on the court, nothing will be done to implement those changes until an appeals court can formally rule on a challenge brought by 27 states, and corporate and industry groups against the EPA. What the Supreme Court has done is to restore some sense of accountability to an agency that has attempted to become a legislative body without any authority to do so.
The appellate courts will now have to give the 27 states the opportunity to make their case. The Supreme Court is not just saving the jobs of coal miners and the economy in several states, but calls attention to the rule of law at a time when the president of the United States has come to believe that he doesn’t have to bother with the consent of Congress. He just rewrites the law and dares the critics to stop him.
That stay will remain in effect through the end of Mr. Obama’s presidency, until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear the case—in 2017 at the earliest. The stay sends the strongest possible signal that the court is prepared to strike down the Clean Power Plan on the merits, assuming the next president doesn’t revoke it.
Not since the court blocked President Harry Truman’s seizure of the steel industry has it so severely rebuked a president’s abuse of power. …
In a ruling two years ago the court held that the EPA couldn’t conjure up authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance” absent a clear statement from Congress. Thus, the EPA may have the authority to require power plants to operate more efficiently and to install reasonable emissions-reduction technologies. But nothing authorizes the agency to pick winners (solar, wind) and losers (coal) and order generation to be shifted from one to the other, disrupting billion-dollar industries in the process.
The EPA has been rebuked by the courts repeatedly. In January the House joined the Senate in trying to stop another of Obama’s “power grabs” — the EPA’s attempt to seize control of virtually all waterways across the country. The federal government has used the EPA as its proxy and the Clean Water Act to enact its ideas about controlling privately owned land through the regulation of waterways. This year they extended, without congressional input, their authority through the 1972 Clean Water Act.
The Obama administration excused this attempted appropriation as nothing more than an effort to save the nation’s streams, headwaters, creeks and wetlands from “pollution and degradation.” In reality, the EPA simply wanted to expand its command over such near-waterless features as dry creeks, potholes and puddles . Under this regime, private individuals or businesses would need government permission to do anything on their property that is even remotely related to water — such as digging a drainage ditch — giving Washington sweeping powers over private lands.
A federal judge told the EPA last August that they had gone too far, but they just shrugged and said they would enforce the rule in the 37 states that were not part of the lawsuit. “Administrative Law” is one of those innocuous phrases in which the Left excels, like the substitution of “extremist” for “terrorist.” But you must pay attention to the real meaning — which is the substitution of agency regulation and presidential orders or directions or memos for the lawful actions of Congress. As Jonathan Turley, professor of Law at George Washington University said:
“What the president is doing is not one of the dangers
the Framers were concerned about; it is the danger
the Framers were concerned about.”
Filed under: Freedom, Iran, Iraq, Military, National Security, Police, Syria, Terrorism, Women | Tags: Angela Merkel, Murmansk - Russia, Yazidi "Force of the Sun Ladies"
But they are refugees — we owe them empathy and compassion, we have to help them, don’t we? German Chancellor Angela Merkel saw the desperate bombed out cities and towns in Syria on television, and invited the refugees to come to Germany, because they needed more workers, and owed them compassion. The politicos seem to line up with Chancellor Merkel, but the people are not so sure.
During the New Years celebration in Cologne, Germany at least a thousand North African refugees groped women, there were allegations of two rapes, and the mayor of the city requested that women monitor their “code of conduct.” (Look what she was wearing, she was asking for it) The authorities are dedicated to tolerance, which trumps both survival and personal safety.
In Russia, 51 Muslim refugees expelled from Norway go to a nightclub in Murmansk, grope and molest women, and wake up in the hospital. Russians don’t have all that much tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women, in the manner that women were attacked in Cologne. A group of Russian men took them aside to teach them a lesson. and gave them a beating they would remember. Police arrived to break up the fight, but threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen were in such bloody condition they had to be taken to the hospital.
The police decided not to file a report, but they did confirm that there was a “mass brawl involving refugees.”
There were various reports about from where the Muslim Refugees were expelled. some said Cologne, others said they were expelled from Norway for “bad behavior.” What seems to be fairly universal is the tolerance expressed and enforced in Western Europe. Herbert London described the situation:
Much of the chaos Germany now endures was predictable. After all, many Muslim men treat woman as inferior, mere objects for their sexual delectation. The Koran endorses the proposition that a woman has half the rights of a man in any legal proceeding. Nonetheless, the compassion crusade goes on.
Common sense would suggest that those who cannot assimilate should never be allowed in and those whose behavior violates German law should be thrown out. But that isn’t the conversation in political councils; it is the conversation on the street. The authorities generally stand with Merkel.
We are suffering from the same tolerance delusion here. The president recoils from calling anyone a “terrorist” — they are “extremists,” but then so is anyone in this country who has a concealed carry permit or holds up a Gadsden flag, or resides in one of those odd states like Texas or Oklahoma or Idaho. It’s all very strange, and requires careful use of language.
In Erbil, Iraq, “some 2.000 Yazidi women who were captured in the brutal August 2014 attack on their mountain stronghold — have escaped and taken up arms against their former tormentors.They witnessed the slaughter of their families on Mount Sinjar and then were forced into sexual slavery.” They call themselves the ‘Force of the Sun Ladies’ and are ready to fight for vengeance. They have been trained and are ready to fight alongside the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. They range in age from 17 to 37 and there are 500 more waiting to be trained.
The Ladies are reportedly killing about ten ISIS fighters every day.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Intelligence, Iran, Military, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Big Money for Climate, Climate Change & the Military, Not Much for the Military
This is the time of year when President Obama has to come up with his 2017 budget request. Reports have said that the president is planning to ask Congress for billions and billions more to spend on controlling the uncontrollable natural warming and cooling of the earth.
In his weekly address on Saturday, Obama repeated once again his belief that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, which he has said repeatedly, at least 22 times, insisting that it ranks higher on the danger list than terrorism, which he plans to defeat with windmills. Last week he proposed a $10 a barrel tax on oil production, since the price of gas at the pump has dropped and you probably won’t notice if it goes right back up.
His formal request is for $5.2 billion for Department of Energy Green programs — like all the ones that have already gone bankrupt like Solyndra. $1.8 billion would go to making green energy storage more economical. DOE would also get $880 million to make green transportation more affordable and push green fuels. The big drop in the price of gasoline is playing hob with the sales of electric cars, which aren’t all that green anyway if you consider where they get the electricity from.
The EPA’s budget is supposed to get a 50% increase, while 20 states are asking the Supreme Court to challenge their climate rule, which the states say “would cause “irreparable harm” were it allowed to be implemented.”
The National Science Foundation would get $512 million to study green energy. and the USDA would get $105 million for “competitive and intramural research funding to support development of bio-based energy sources that range from sustainable and economical forest systems and farm products to increased production of biofuels.”Even HUD gets more money to get more low-carbon energy into residential homes.
Biofuels don’t work, ethanol should be banned, and Obama wants to put more wood products or anything at all that could replace fossil fuels into your gas tanks. He believes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant (which it isn’t) that it is the cause of the tiny rise in the temperature of the Earth over the last century (it isn’t). We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, because it is a natural fertilizer for plants and is greening the world.
The EPA has released a finding that aircraft (except for Air Force One) carbon emissions contribute to climate change. This will be coordinated with “the International Civil-Aviation Organization, a branch of the United Nations, which is drafting a global standard for airline carbon emissions.”
And terrorism? The bigger threat to America’s security is that the military has not made climate change its number one priority.” A new Pentagon directive says that climate change must be a part of all Defense Department “programs, plans and policies.”
A huge new defense climate bureaucracy is being born after years of defense cutbacks. Our Army is the smallest since 1940. The Navy is the smallest since 1915. Willful stupidity. Obama’s former CIA deputy director Mike Morell told PBS’s Charlie Rose “We didn’t go after oil wells…that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage.” ISIS just cut their fighter’s salaries in half, because of the drop in the price of the oil that supports their activities.
In the meantime, North Korea just conducted a test of a three stage Taepodong that could potentially carry a nuclear weapon to the U.S. just a month after they said they had detonated a hydrogen bomb. Iran is working on a “Mysterious new installation that’s tied to its nuclear weapons program.” Iran is using North Korea to develop their nuclear program and are cooperating on their missile program. North Korea calls it a “satellite launch” which doesn’t fool anybody but Obama.
Investors says: “Closer to home, there have been at least 81 major terrorist threats against the U .S. since 9/11, the most recent just last month, according to the Heritage Foundation.” The administration tries to palm off their passivity with the term “strategic patience.” Obama has always hidden behind a carefully constructed web of clever words. Sometimes it works.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Economics, Economy, Energy, Free Markets, Freedom, Taxes, Unemployment | Tags: Economist Mark Perry, President Barack Obama, Wal-Mart Stores
—The correct minimum wage is $0.00. If you want to hire your neighbor’s 11 year old kid to mow your lawn or pull weeds, you should be able to offer him something under the current minimum wage.
The goofy Democrat line is “But you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage.” Well, no you can’t, but by the time you have a family, you should have some skills that are more useful than those of a pure beginner. We forget that employment, like everything else in the economy, depends on supply and demand. The supply of people who can do a simple minimum wage job successfully is very, very large. The supply of those who can run a giant corporation with 20 divisions, 20,000 employees and country-wide or international reach is significantly much, much smaller. The average tenure for a CEO as head of a corporation is only six years.
—Wal-Mart, America’s largest employer just announced that they will close more than 150 US stores — which will mean that 10,000 employees will lose their jobs. Shutting down underperforming stores will help to move the company back to health, when it can create more permanent jobs. Wal-Mart voluntarily raised its base wage to $9 an hour last April, but this resulted in a 10% drop in earnings. A Union backed group that has heckled the retailer to raise it’s entry level wage, was astonished. But the job losses are the direct result of the changes made at Wal-Mart.
—Here’s Economist Mark Perry at AEI with a list of ten reasons why economists object to the minimum wage.
Obama and Hillary are still pretending that women are paid less than men because America’s employers discriminate against female workers. The Left needs women to be victims, and Hillary is running on her qualifications as a woman. “Today, women account for almost half of the workforce,” Obama huffed. “But the typical woman who works full time still earns 79 cents for every dollar that the typical man does.” Bogus statistic, and Obama knows it, for it simply depends on comparing all women to all men. It has been against the law to pay women and men who do the same job differently since 1963.
Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every two years.
—Income inequality, the basis of the entire Democrat campaign, is a factor of demographics. Kids starting out have little income and may have big student loans, or renting an apartment or buying a used car are big expenses. There are more middle-age and old people now than there used to be, and older people tend to have more money than their younger counterparts simply because they have been earning money much longer.
A 70 year old man has been saving most of his life. He owns his home. his children are grown, he gets Social Security on retirement, and has benefited from a life-long buildup of career skills and connections and is apt to have far more money than a 30 year old. There is a clear relationship between age and the median net worth of people in every quintile. There are more old people as the baby boomers reach retirement age, and the birth rate has dropped so there are fewer young people. Do not let the Democrats fool you with their whining about Income Inequality. Sheer Demographics.
—In his remarks to the Press on Friday, when he bragged about the wonderfulness of his economy, Obama mentioned the drop in the cost of gasoline as one of his beneficial outcomes. That happened in spite of Obama, not because of Obama, as a result of the glut of oil based on Fracking. Obama’s instinctive response is to try to slap a $10 a barrel tax on oil so he can raise the cost of gasoline at the pump — while having more taxes to invest in “clean energy” which is pure waste. Obama’s wind and solar investment, in spite of the huge subsidies and grants, provide a resounding 0.3 percent of America’s energy.
(additional sentence added about equal pay for women)
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Politics, The United States | Tags: Americans Don't Hate the Rich, Income Inequality, Redistribution of Income
How do you make an economy grow and prosper? An constant theme among the Democrats focuses on dividing up existing wealth. They are quite sure that affluent Americans have reached their wealthy state at the expense of the poor and the middle class. Their solution is to take the excess wealth from the rich and give it to the poor in the form of government grants of one sort or another.
The important point is that there is no growth nor prosperity in their plan. Bernie Sanders can promise free college for all which he intends to accomplish by taking more money from the rich, whether in much higher taxes on their income or some kind of direct grab of their untaxed wealth in offshore shelters or wherever they are hiding it.
The problem is that the Democrats are far more interested in “equality” than they are in creating wealth. They really don’t understand how wealth is created, they are much more caught up in class envy. A constant theme of the current Democratic presidential race has been income inequality, with a belief that America’s rich have reached their status at the expense of the poor and the middle class. Perhaps they always think of wealth as a pie, divided into servings, and the rich get the big pieces so there is little left for the poor.
They are big on “diversity” so they are currently intent on moving poor minorities into well-to-do suburban neighborhoods. Every neighborhood should be diverse, no more black neighborhoods or ethnic neighborhoods. My German ancestors came to Germantown in Pennsylvania when they arrived in America. Human beings are tribal, and want to live with people who are like themselves, and speak the same language, and eat the same kind of food, celebrate the same holidays — it’s natural, and happened with most ethnic groups who immigrated.
How do you create wealth? New small businesses start and gradually grow into big businesses, not all of them of course — but all big businesses once started as little businesses.
And those small businesses began with an idea. How do you generate ideas? Some of them start with irritation with a tool, for example, when someone is frustrated with a tool that does not accomplish the desired task, and they just figure there must be a better way. For most, it stops there because they have no idea how to turn their idea into a business. Those who create a business don’t necessarily have knowledge of how to successfully run a business. And how to run a business is divided up into many different skill sets.
All those inventions that have changed the world — think of how Edison’s little lightbulb changed life all across the world, and all the millions of other inventions and businesses that have derived from cheap, dependable light— when the sun goes down.
It’s autonomy — the quality or state of being independent, free and self directing. The capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Why do the Democrats hate freedom so much?
Filed under: Cool Site of the Day, Freedom, Health Care, Heartwarming, Israel, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Dr Homayoon Kazerooni, Steven Sanchez, suitX exoskeleton
A California robotics company called suitX has presented it’s Phoenix exoskeleton to the public. It makes it possible for paraplegics and those with mobility disorders to regain their ability to walk, which is a priceless blessing. It is not the first exoskeleton, which was developed in Israel, but it is the most affordable so far, at about the price of a new Cadillac.
SuitX is led by Dr. Homayoon Kazerooni, who is director of the Berkley Robotics and Human Engineering Laboratory and co-founder and chief scientist of Ekso Bionics. Dr. Kazerooni and his team are driven by a dream of developing low-cost consumer bionic products to improve the quality of life for the disabled. To achieve their goal of keeping the robotics as affordable as possible the team worked with biomechanics instead of the bulky robotics used in the other exoskeletons available so far. One of their prime goals is to help children affected by neurological conditions like cerebral palsy and spina bifida, during the brief time in development when they perfect their walking skills.
The current Phoenix totals around 28 pounds. It consists of modules made for a person’s hips, knees and feet — each can be independently removed and adjusted to the individual’s exact size. A back-mounted battery pack provides power for eight hours of intermittent use or four hours of continuous use.The Phoenix can move a paralyzed person at a speed of 1.1 miles an hour, the company said.
Steven Sanchez was a former BMX dirt bike rider who became mostly paralyzed by a sports injury. He’s now one of the biggest proponents of the Phoenix. “It feels like you’re actually walking,”
The exoskeleton has silent carbon-fiber orthotics capable of being customized to its wearer. Attached to the orthotics are small motors that provide mobility to the hips and legs. Crutches provide upper body support and are integrated into the orthotics, allowing the wearer to control the movement of each leg with the touch of a button. A built-in back-mounted battery pack provides the wearer with 8 hours of intermittent or 4 hours of continual use.
Weighing around 27 pounds, the Phoenix is not the lightest exoskeleton on the market, but it is comparatively lighter than competing suits such as the more cumbersome 50 pound ReWalk.
While still costlier than a motorized wheelchair, the minimal design translates into a lower-cost exoskeleton; the Phoenix costs just $40,000 in a market where prices range from $70,000 to $100,000.
Dr. Kazerooni is more interested in cleverness. He says you can buy a motorcycle with all sorts of technology for $10,000, so he’s hoping to reduce the cost even more within two or three years— something robust and simple that walks, stops. sits and stands — hugely enabling.
Steven Sanchez tests the product monthly and demonstrates the product all over the world. He wore the Phoenix on a trip to the Vatican, and stood in line like anyone else — “wearing an “awesome robotic suit” and “no one cared.” For those who can only dream of walking, that is a very big deal indeed.