Investors Business Daily
written by IBT Editorials
Monday March 15, 2010 06:42pm ET
Regulation: The New York Times says the EPA should use its authority to regulate our very breath if a Democratic Congress isn't "goaded" into action. Whatever happened to government of the people?
It's been a pattern of this administration that if the American people are adamantly opposed to it, ram it through anyway. So it's been with the health care overhaul, offshore drilling restrictions and now the Environmental Protection Agency threatening to become the uber-regulator of the air we breathe.
The New York Times says in a Saturday editorial regarding that last item that if Congress fails to enact cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer, the EPA should jam it down our throats.
After all, the Supreme Court said the EPA had the power, even the obligation, to impose draconian restrictions on so-called greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. The elected representatives of the American people should just get out of the way.
We've heard this argument before. Last April, Time magazine ran a piece titled "EPA'S CO2 Finding: Putting A Gun To Congress' Head." This isn't the government structure the Founding Fathers envisioned.
They had in mind a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, and the EPA was not one of them. The only gun that should be held to Congress' head is the vote of the American people.
The paper of distorted record objects to a "resolution of disapproval" originated by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, an energy-producing state forced to keep vast stores of energy locked up underground or under offshore sea beds. This the newspaper says is a "destructive idea" that "would reject the EPA's recent scientific finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health."
Yes, that's right. The product of your breathing, the carbon dioxide you exhale and that every plant, even in the rain forest, breathes in is a danger to your health and the planet.
It matters not that the EPA's "scientific" finding was based largely on the fraudulent analysis and manipulated data produced by such entities as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Britain's Climate Research Unit.
Even NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cooked the books, cherry-picking temperature data and closing down weather-reporting stations inconveniently located in colder, rural areas and the Canadian Arctic.
As Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted: "Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (issuing its finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true."
No comments:
Post a Comment