Obama's Legacy

Remember in Back to the Future, Marty McFly had a photograph that showed his brother & sister fading unless he could change the past? I think that about Obama's legacy. Especially since the Courts have recently declared Obama’s abominable EPA “Waters of the United States Rule” unlawful.

Buh bye, Barry!

Letter to the Editor, My Dead Tree Newspaper

Dear Editor: I was dismayed by the dishonesty of the pair of political cartoons published on 2/16. The first showed a presumably Republican elephant taking a dump in a little black girl's water supply. The second showed (Republican) Gov. Snyder "pinching pennies" which resulted in the "nightmare" of Flint.

The decision to change water supplies to save money was the result of the Democrat controlled city council of Flint, deciding they could save money if they transitioned to a different supplier. This was to be phased in over 3 years. Flint was getting their water from Detroit, where the city council (also presumably Democrat) spitefully cut them off as soon as they heard about their decision, leaving Flint scrambling for a new source of water. "Let them drink lead!" Okay, they didn't say that, but that was the end result.

In their haste, in a crisis directly fomented by the Detroit city council, Flint chose poorly. No Republicans were harmed (or involved) in the fomenting of this crisis. After a time, both Gov. Snyder and Obama's EPA (Heck of a job, Brownie!) were notified of the water quality issue and, as I understand it, did nothing. Fault them for that, but do it in an Equal Opportunity manner. There is plenty of nonpartisan blame to go around, but Republicans did NOT create the crisis.

But, please stop repeating the lie that the crisis was caused because an uncaring Republican governor was trying to pinch pennies, not caring if it would poison babies in Flint, Michigan. You might also mention that to a certain Democrat demagogue running for president, currently spreading the same lie.

Obama Then and Now

Separated at Birth?

The Sky is Falling Five Parts per Billion at a Time

When the EPA was started, we didn't have the technology to study things that small. Now, the arrogant bureaucrats at the EPA mandate unreasonable regulations based on unrealistic expectations.

Has the EPA outlived its usefulness?

The Future of Horticulture under Obama's EPA

(Any resemblance between this potted plant and a certain anonymous Internet troll will almost certainly be insulting to the plant!)

Five Years, Four Billion Dollars Later, EPA Tells Shell: Don't Drill

Just how serious is the Obama Administration about reducing energy costs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil?

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

What kind of hazard to people just how close?

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

Let me get this straight...245 people, seventy miles away might be put at hazard because an icebreaker wasn't taken into consideration in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions? How about we shut down every freeway within seventy miles of any population of two hundred or more, because an extra tractor trailer or two might add to carbon emissions there! This is an incredible exhibition of abuse of federal power. Life is not zero emissions. It's time for the EPA to come to grips with the real world. Congress should take note and curtail the EPA. Voters should take note and curtail the politicians who allow such abuses to take place.

And when the demagogues tell you what obscene profits the oil companies are making (less in percentage than the taxes on a gallon of gas), ask them how the oil companies should handle multi-billion dollar losses imposed on them by arbitrary regulations from the federal government?

I'm sure they'll have a logical response!

H/T Pirate's Cove