Monday, September 30, 2013

No Global Warming, again..hello !

Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed
Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”
A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.
The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

Source: Daily Caller, 1:27 PM 09/29/2013 Read more: Read more:

Read more:

US and Europe tried to cover up data showing lack of global warming

It looks like the science isn’t settled. Leaked documents obtained by the Associated Press show that the U.S. government and several European governments tried to get climate scientists to downplay the lack of global warming over the past 15 years.

The highly anticipated United Nations report on global warming is expected to affirm the link between human activity and global warming, but scientists are still having trouble explaining away the lull in rising global temperatures over the past 15 years despite rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels.

The lull in global warming has been noted by skeptics to show the flaws behind the science and the theory that human activities, primarily through burning fossil fuels, causes global temperatures to rise.


Where’s the outcry from the voters to demand that government stop closing our coal-fired power plants, or ending carbon exchanges, or stop emission controls or end the use of ethanol or better yet quit the U.N.  This hoax has cost the U.S. $ trillions.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Truckers v. Obama

Truckers roar to D.C. with impeachment movement

In less than two weeks, thousands of truckers will descend on Washington, D.C., driving their big-rigs and calling for the restoration of a constitutional republic – but now their plan has taken a new twist: Their friends and families will simultaneously join other Americans rallying on overpasses across the nation for Obama’s impeachment.

The Truckers’ Ride for the Constitution movement has a new ally in their protest against what organizers say is corruption in government and a trashing of the Constitution. The group is teaming up with Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment to line the routes into Washington with flags during the Oct. 11-13 event.
Both Houses of Congress are tentatively scheduled to be in session Oct. 11.

Truckers Ride for the Constitution leader and organizer Zeeda Andrews, a country singer and former truck driver, said Overpasses Founder James Neighbors reached out to her, suggesting the two groups form an alliance. Neighbors said the partnership is a “natural” merger for a common cause.
“Thousands of truckers have seen us across America,” he said. “We’ve gotten emails from them, thanking us for waking them up. The biker ride in D.C. happened. Then, the next thing you know, the trucker thing did, and we got even more emails from truckers across the country, thanking us.”
He added, “We are going to be out on the overpasses and at truck stops, encouraging the truckers to head to D.C., to join in with the others. They, in exchange, are encouraging their families who are at home to join us on the overpasses.
Facebook tries to shut truckers down
On Sept. 22, Facebook removed the truckers’ Facebook page, “Truckers to Shutdown America,” which had accumulated 86,000 “likes” within days of its launch.
“Political opponents attacked the Truckers to Shutdown America page within days, and they exploited a little known (to the public) feature on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter called ‘community standards’ flagging, which allows them to instantaneously shut down an account on these social media platforms,” the truckers group explained in a press release.
“[A]n administrator of the page offended someone by saying, ‘God bless you, and God bless America.”
Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.

According to the group, radio talk-host Pete Santelli, of “The Pete Santelli Show,” has indicated that he “intends to take legal action against YouTube and Twitter on behalf of all truckers, their supporters, as well as other members of the public who are similarly harmed by these unconstitutional ‘community standards.’”
While the truckers’ group says it has made numerous attempts to appeal Facebook’s decision, the page remains unpublished.
Now the group is planning a special delivery to Facebook’s corporate headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on the same day of the Washington, D.C., convoy.
“Ride for the Constitution will now organize a convoy to Facebook corporate headquarters … to coincide with the ride to Washington, D.C.,” the group explained. “We fully intend to arrive on corporate America’s doorstep with our original ‘community standards’ guideline in hand – the U.S. Constitution.”
The truckers also launched their website,, and created a second Facebook page called, “Truckers Ride for the Constitution.”
‘Wake up the sleeping giant’
What do they intend to accomplish with a convoy into Washington and nationwide rallies on overpasses?
Neighbors explained, “The goal is to wake up the sleeping giant, the people of America.”
Truckers co-organizer Benn Pam said the rally will be quite a patriotic scene.
“I think it’s great,” he said. “There are going to be thousands of trucks on the highways, flying flags. There are all of those people who are in the Overpasses campaign flying flags. Between the two groups, we may be covering a good part of the national highway network.”
Andrews said more organizations are expected to join the rally, and she has “two other huge groups that will give me a conformation.”
But this event isn’t just another political rally. The joint venture has clear objectives. Neighbors said one goal is to pressure Congress to begin the impeachment process.
“In doing so, the people can force Congress to act to begin by removing Obama from office,” he explained.
He said his group will also protest “RINOs and progressive Democrats” before the 2014 midterm elections.
Andrews said she believes connecting with the Overpasses group will help achieve her group’s aims.
“We both want to see an end to the unconstitutional laws in this country,” she said.
By joining forces, she said, both groups will get more publicity and video footage of the event.
However, the group’s short-term goal is to see a three-day cessation of business. Organizers are asking Americans to pre-purchase food and other necessities before Oct. 11 to send a message to Congress.
“We want to see the dollar stop circulating for three days,” Andrews said. “What we also want to see is deregulation for the truckers and our Constitution restored. We want to get rid of unconstitutional laws like the National Defense Authorization Act and the Patriot Act.”
Andrews also said she has a list of grievances she plans to present to every member of Congress before the trucks leave Washington.
Time to rally, contact lawmakers
Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment national coordinator and co-founder Rick Halle said he’s hopeful that the event will get Congress to remember its commitment to the Constitution.
“The ultimate result would be for our representatives to start taking their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously,” he said. “At the very least, we will get the message out to others who believe, as we do, that government corruption is rampant and that they are not alone.”
However, Halle admitted that Congress will only feel pressure if enough people rally in the streets and make their voices heard by calling their lawmakers.
“We believe that we will also wake some people up so they start paying attention,” he said. “If enough people wake up and start contacting their representatives, then we believe that they will have no choice but to take notice.”
Some critics in the trucking industry have taken to Facebook to condemn the upcoming protest.
American Trucking Associations spokesman Sean McNally said his group opposes Andrews’ activities.
“The American Trucking Associations is not a sponsor of this ‘strike’ nor do we endorse or condone the activities of these few individuals,” McNally said. “ATA and the vast majority of America’s truck drivers will continue to deliver the nation’s most essential goods unabated even while we continue to work through whatever policy disagreements we have with Congress and the administration.”
But Andrews is undeterred. She said, “I have the truckers that I need.”

It’s Really Stupid Being Green

Electricity Becoming Third World Luxury In Green Germany
Gone Green: Electricity should flow like a river in developed nations. It's a basic good that ought to always be available in whatever quantities consumers will pay for. But in Germany, it's now something else: a luxury item.
This isn't failure of the market. It's a failure of the country's green energy agenda called Energiewende, or energy revolution or transformation.
Germany's goal is to end its reliance on nuclear energy by 2022. The plan is to replace the lost nuclear power with wind, solar and other renewables, and to have these sources provide 80% of the country's energy by 2050. So far, the effort has flopped.
"German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe," Der Spiegel reported earlier this month. "But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk."
Talk about turning back the clock.
Der Spiegel reports that German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier is asking his countrymen to live as if they are trapped in a backward Third World economy that can't keep the lights on. He has put together a list of energy-saving tips that surely makes the average German think he's living in Uganda rather than Europe.
Sounding a lot like Jimmy Carter, Altmaier suggests consumers avoid preheating ovens, fuzz their television pictures (because poor picture quality requires less energy), cook with lids on the pots and live with refrigerators that don't keep perishable items quite so cool. Sounds like East Germany all over again.

But this is what the Germans wanted — in fact, it's what they almost rioted for.

After Chancellor Angela Merkel, just re-elected in a landslide, ordered a 12-year delay of the previous government's directive to shut down nuclear power in 2010, 100,000 marched against the change.

A 28-mile human chain was formed from a nuclear power plant in southwest Germany to Stuttgart. The Economist reported that the activists were driven by "outright hostility" and recounted "angry blockades" that tried to stop the transport of nuclear waste.

Some will call this "progress." It's not. It's a reversal, a regression, a return to a more primitive time.

"Going green" means depending on energy sources that are unreliable, weak — and antiquated. Consumers in wealthy nations shouldn't have to think about electricity. They should just be able to turn it on on demand.

Source: Investor's Business Daily: 9/25/13

Obama and the EPA are following the failed European energy boondoggle at breakneck speed.  This fact should be enough to create 100% turnover in Congress in the up-coming elections.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Thursday, September 26, 2013

2012 Election Fraud

Was The 2012 Election Stolen By Obama And The IRS?

September 26, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root

It is increasingly clear that the 2012 elections, both Presidential and Senate, were stolen by Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, the Internal Revenue Service and government employee unions. It’s right out of a mob movie like “The Godfather.”
The Obama crime family could give the mob lessons. Don Obama plays for keeps. The Don gets what he wants. And when he found himself in danger of losing his power and control, Obama went to his enforcers: the IRS.

In a story reminiscent of the mob’s fixing union elections, the IRS enforcers conspired to destroy Don Obama’s main competition: Tea Party and other conservative fundraising groups.

Lois Lerner was only one of many IRS big shots in D.C. who gave orders to IRS offices across the United States to “kill” Tea Party and other conservative groups. Their goal: Steal the election. As of only days ago, the “fall gal” retired from the IRS. We can only guess what kind of massive payoff she received from Obama’s donors.

The 2010 elections were the biggest embarrassment suffered by a U.S. President in modern history. The power, energy and passion of the Tea Party won the GOP an amazing 63 House seats, six Senate seats, six governorships and 680 seats in State legislatures. It was a historic landslide. Obama’s entire agenda was threatened.

Yet the mainstream media expects us to believe that only two years later (2012) that Tea Party energy and passion was gone — overnight. Or perhaps they changed back to fans of Obama and the Democratic Party. What a fairy tale.

The real story is that the Obama Administration ordered the IRS to delay, distract, hound, harass and intimidate Tea Party groups across the United States. Without IRS attacks and interference, Tea Party groups would have had the same influence and momentum as in 2010, when their raging energy and passion led to a shocking landslide defeat for Obama and his allies.

There is no need to question or debate any longer. We now have emails from IRS officials stating exactly that: The Tea Party groups had to be stopped if Democrats wanted to win the election.

And conservative donations had to be stalled if Democrats wanted to retain control of the U.S. Senate.

Instead of massive Tea Party rallies and record-setting fundraising for conservative candidates, Tea Party groups were busy being distracted, hounded, harassed and intimidated by the IRS. They were busy being asked about the names of their members, the names of their speakers, the content of their Facebook posts and even the content of their prayers.
Conservative media personalities (like yours truly) were attacked with IRS audits, as were pro-life, pro-Israel and pro-Constitution groups. The tax-deductible status of Tea Party groups was purposely stalled so they could not raise money for the 2012 election.
What the biased liberal mainstream media refuses to do is connect the dots. None has the courage to state that “the fix” was in and that a fraud perpetrated by government employees handed control of the United States of America to Obama, a politician who supports government employees and their unions.

What did the IRS get out of this? The answer is pure bribery. Republicans, and especially Tea Party groups, believe in limited government, smaller budgets, fewer government employees and cutting bloated salaries, obscene pensions and early retirement for government employees. Another Tea Party landslide would have threatened the power of government employee unions. Many government employees would have been laid off.

Does anyone believe it a coincidence that Obama met with IRS union boss Colleen Kelley at the White House the day before the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS began? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Obama was fraudulently re-elected. Our country was hijacked by government employees protecting their cushy lifetime jobs, bloated salaries, obscene pensions and powerful unions.

Think I’m wrong? Evidently, IRS officials don’t. Several of them have been busy hiring famous and expensive law firms to defend them.

Where are they getting the money? Is Obama arranging for big Democratic donors like George Soros or union political funds to pay their legal bills? Is Obama scared to death of what these IRS bosses will say under oath? Could their testimony end his Presidency and destroy his legacy?

In the end, it’s clear to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by government schools or bribed by government checks that the 2012 election was fraudulently stolen by Obama.

What did Obama, Democrats and the IRS gain?

  1. The right to continue to loot the Treasury with bailouts, stimulus, corporate welfare and government contracts to his friends, donors, loyal media lackeys and corrupt union bosses.
  2. The right to continue to redistribute income from the business owners (who vote Republican) to Obama’s voters (the poor, unions and government employees).
  3. The ability to save Obamacare and unionize 15 million healthcare workers, thereby raising $15 billion in union dues to elect Democrats. And, of course, the ability to overwhelm middle-class families with $20,000 annual health insurance bills they can’t pay, thereby addicting them to government handouts.
  4. The IRS itself gains tremendously. They are now in charge of policing Obamacare, a huge new bureaucracy. It also adds thousands of new IRS agents, thereby greatly enriching the IRS union.
  5. The opportunity to pass immigration amnesty, thereby producing 10 million to 20 million new loyal Democratic voters.
  6. The opportunity to bankrupt business owners and permanently weaken the private sector, thereby drying up donations for conservative candidates and causes.
  7. The ability to keep American energy dependent by using the Environmental Protection Agency and executive orders to literally ban or severely damage domestic coal, oil, fracking and nuclear energy production.
  8. The opportunity to weaken American influence internationally. (See Egypt, Libya, Syria.)
Obama’s re-election also means he may serve long enough to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices, whose radical leftist views will ensure America is permanently transformed to a big-government socialist nation.

This wasn’t just any theft, folks. It was a trillion-dollar theft. The Obama crime family (so far) has gotten away with the greatest and most daring act of fraud in world history. They stole the election.

Source: Personal Liberty Digest, Was The 2012 Election Stolen By Obama And The IRS? September 26, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root  Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Personal Liberty Digest™


There were multiple tactics used by Democrats in the 2012 election, not just the IRS fund raising block. There was massive voter fraud with busloads of imposters showing up in other States. The Republican Presidential campaign offered Mitt Romney, a candidate George Soros said would not be too different from Obama. Romney’s campaign was a weak as McCain’s. But the primary enabler of our political corruption continues to be bribery and extortion, with big money donors buying “access” and government employees, unions, illegals, the uninformed and welfare recipients voting in larger numbers. They will continue to vote early and often and multiple times in behalf of those who have passed away.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

War on Coal

Fantasy benefits and painfully real costs in the War on Coal
Every story about the twilight of "global warming" ideology includes angry claims from the climate-change crew that their opponents are the paid henchmen of sinister energy interests. We're not supposed to think about the very powerful, very wealthy special interests who profit handsomely from environmentalist regulations.
Who has a stronger vested interest in such regulations than the agencies that produce them? Laws like the Clean Air Act are a full-employment program for bureaucrats and lawyers. New regulatory regimes, like the EPA's new proposal for muscling the coal power industry out of business, are rolled out with fanciful claims of taxpayer benefit, plucked from thin air... and very real costs, plucked from private-sector wallets.
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, regulators gotta regulate... if we put a trillion-dollar bureaucracy in place, we shouldn't be surprised that it fills the economy with a lot of toxic waste and job-choking paperwork emissions.
The strange thing about the current War on Coal drama, which has some Democrats from coal states taking arms against Barack Obama's EPA, is that the regulators openly admit their latest plans wouldn't actually do much good for the environment, even when judged under their own questionable climate-change assumptions. Big Government doesn't even waste time pretending there is any real demand for the legislative and regulatory "products" we are compelled to pay for.
Source:  Email from Daily Events, John Hayward, Senior Writer
70% or our electrical energy comes from coal-fired power plants.  Some of these are old and are being replaced by natural gas, which is lower now, but not as cost-effective as coal and nuclear at 2 cents/kwh for production cost.  As electrical power consumers, we are better served by coal and nuclear.  Our electric utilities should be free to continue to provide their customers with the lowest cost options.
Global warming is a hoax and expensive or unhelpful alternative energy deployment is a scam.  Carbon capture is unnecessary and carbon credit sales is another scam.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Monday, September 23, 2013

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion:

Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton

 ( - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

The U.S. Treasury divides the U.S. government debt into two parts: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded Treasury securities such as Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and intra-governmental debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund and other government trust funds and then used to pay current expenses.

As of the opening of business back on Nov. 23, 2001, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the federal government’s total debt held by the public was $3,383,605,000,000. (By the close of business that day, the total debt held by the public would increase to 3,406,661,000,000.) The $3,383,605,000,000 in U.S. Treasury debt held by the public as the morning of Nov. 23, 2001, represented the total publicly held debt the federal government had accumulated until that date from the moment the Treasury first opened during the presidency of George Washington.

The $3,383,605,000,000 the Treasury owed to the public as of the morning of Nov. 23, 2001 was less than the $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities owned by the Federal Reserve as of the close of business last Thursday.

Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBSs than the sum total of the publicly held debt that the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.

The mortgage-backed securities owned by the Fed are those that have been issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is government-owned corporation operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered, government-sponsored enterprises, that are now held in conservatorships by the federal government.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and to promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations,” the Congressional Research Service explained in a report published this August. “They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In addition to the GSEs’ guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened and there were concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.”

The federal government first took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008. In its last weekly accounting sheet released before that, on Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008, the Fed said that it owned $479.726 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. That sheet did not even include a line item for mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed’s combined ownership of  $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities is now more than 7 times as great as the $479.726 billion in Treasury securities it owned five years ago before the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.

Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

The Fed’s  press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”

September 22, 2013 - 3:47 PM By Terence P. Jeffrey

Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey RSS


$45 billion a month is $540 billion a year.  The House, Senate and Whitehouse need to agree to cut a half trillion from annual spending. Let’s start with HUD, EPA, FDA, DOT, USDA, Education, Labor, Energy, Interior, Commerce and all military foreign aid. Let the States handle this; it’s “constitutional”.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Obama’s War On Coal Escalates

Posted June 25, 2013 on 

Obama Abandons Any Pretense Of An “All Of The Above” Energy Plan And Steps Up His Effort To Bankrupt The Coal Industry

Today, Obama Will Outline His Latest Energy Plan That Will Expand Greenhouse-Gas Regulations To Cover Existing Power Plants. “President Obama will announce Tuesday that he plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, according to individuals who have been briefed on the plan but asked not to be identified.” (Juliet Eilperin, “Obama To Announce Tuesday He Will Regulate Existing Power Plants As Part Of Climate Strategy,” The Washington Post , 6/22/13)

  • Obama’s Latest Regulations “Would Be Vastly More Costly And Contentious” Than His Previous Controversial Regulations. “The administration has already begun steps to restrict climate-altering emissions from any newly built power plants, but imposing carbon standards on the existing utility fleet would be vastly more costly and contentious.” (John M. Broder, “Obama Readying Emissions Limits On Power Plants,” The New York Times , 6/19/13)

Harvard Professor Daniel P. Schrag, One Of President Obama’s Advisers On Climate Change, Said “A War On Coal Is Exactly What’s Needed.” “Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped advise the White House on climate change, said he hoped the presidential speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on climate change. ‘Everybody is waiting for action,’ he said. ‘The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.’” (John M Broder, “Obama to Outline Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases,”The New York Times, 6/25/13)


“Last Year The Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Regulating Greenhouse-Gas Emissions From New Power Plants.” “For months, environmentalists have been pressing the White House to regulate utilities powered by coal and natural gas, which account for a third of the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions and 40 percent of its carbon output. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants, but it has delayed finalizing that rule. According to individuals familiar with the White House plan, who asked not to be identified since the president has yet to deliver his speech, Obama will couch the effort not only in terms of the nation’s domestic priorities, but as a way to meet the administration’s international pledge to reduce the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels. According to an independent analysis by the World Resources Institute, the United States will need to regulate existing power plants and take other steps as well to meet that goal.” (Juliet Eilperin, “Obama To Announce Tuesday He Will Regulate Existing Power Plants As Part Of Climate Strategy,” The Washington Post , 6/22/13)

  • The 2012 EPA Regulation Meant That Coal-Fired Plants “As They Exist Now Will Not Be Built In The Future.” “But beyond that, the rule means that coal-fired power plants as they exist now will not be built in the future. The standard will generally require that new power plants emit CO2 at a rate no greater than that of a natural-gas-fired power plant. Such plants emit about 60 percent less greenhouse gases than coal plants.” (Erica Martinson, “EPA Hits Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants,” Politico, 3/26/12)

Obama’s Greenhouse Rule Would “Effectively Prohibit New Coal-Fired Power Plants.” “President Barack Obama’s proposed emission rules for power plants effectively prohibit new coal- fired power plants, buttressing the nation’s shift away from a power source that fueled the Industrial Revolution to cheap natural gas. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from U.S. power plants yesterday, setting a standard natural-gas facilities can meet. A new coal plant, however, would need carbon-capture technology, which industry lobbyists say isn’t available at competitive rates.” (Mark Drajem, “Obama Power-Plant Rule Signals Demise Of ‘Old King Coal,’” Bloomberg, 3/28/12)

  • Obama’s 2012 Greenhouse Gas Proposal “Probably Will Mean That No New Coal-Fired U.S. Plants Will Be Built After This Year.” “The Obama administration’s proposal last week to put the first limits on greenhouse gases from new power plants probably will mean that no new coal-fired U.S. plants will be built after this year, but that won’t slash coal use anytime soon.” (Renee Schoof, “EPA Climate Proposal could Limit Coal’s Future, At Least In US,” McClatchy, 4/1/12)


According To The American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity, 288 Coal Units Across 32 States Are Currently Slated To Close Because Of EPA Policies. (“Coal Unit Shutdown,” American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity, 6/20/13)

Between 2009 And 2012, Credit Suisse Estimated Coal Plant Closures At 111 Plants – “One-Fifth Of The Nation’s Nearly 500 Coal Plants .” “But in the past two years, an increasing number of coal-powered electricity plants across the country have announced closures. Estimates vary, but banking and industry analysis firm Credit Suisse put expected and known closures for 2009-2012 at 111 plants, that’s one-fifth of the nation’s nearly 500 coal plants.” (Lisa Desjardins, “The War Over Coal Is Personal,” CNN, 7/17/12)

Last Year, The Energy Information Administration Projected That 2012 Coal Retirements Would Constitute “The Largest One-Year Amount In The Nation’s History.” “The coal-fired capacity expected to be retired over the next five years is more than four times greater than retirements performed during the preceding five-year period (6.5 GW). Moreover, based on EIA data, the approximate 9 GW of coal-fired capacity retirements expected to occur in 2012 will likely be the largest one-year amount in the nation’s history.” (“27 Gigawatts Of Coal-Fired Capacity To Retire over The Next Five Years,” Energy Information Administration, 7/27/12)

Even Fellow Democrats Have Criticized The Impact Of Obama’s Disastrous Energy Policies

“Some Democrats, Including Those Hawkish About Climate Action, Also Worry That Tough New Standards On Power Plants Could Slow Job Growth And Raise Energy Costs…” “Some Democrats, including those hawkish about climate action, also worry that tough new standards on power plants could slow job growth and raise energy costs, particularly in places like the industrial Midwest that depend on cheap power from coal. But administration officials signaled that Mr. Obama had decided the risks from climate change outweighed the potential economic and political costs from taking steps to address it.” (John M. Broder, “Obama Readying Emissions Limits On Power Plants,” The New York Times , 6/19/13)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Condemned The Obama Administration’s “Attempts To Destroy Our Coal Industry And Way Of Life In West Virginia.” “Announcing the suit against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, condemned what he called the Obama administration’s ‘attempts to destroy our coal industry and way of life in West Virginia.’” (Erik Eckholm, “West Virginia Sues U.S. Over Mining Restrictions,” The New York Times, 10/7/10)

  • Manchin: “This EPA Is Fully Engaging In A War On Coal, Even Though This Country Will Continue To Rely On Coal As An Affordable, Stable And Abundant Energy Source For Decades To Come.” (“Sen. Manchin: EPA Fully Engaged In A War On Coal,” The Herald-Dispatch, 3/27/12)

  • Manchin: “This Is What Happens When This Country Doesn’t Have A True All-Of The-Above Energy Approach. Instead Of Trying To Completely Eliminate Coal In The Long-Term, The EPA Should Be Trying To Work With Industry.” (“Sen. Manchin: EPA Fully Engaged In A War On Coal,” The Herald-Dispatch, 3/27/12)

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D-WV), On The EPA’s Regulations: “Yet Another Example Of The EPA’s Inappropriate Use Of Its Regulatory Authority … We Should Be Working To Make Our Country More Energy Independent And Create Jobs, Not Harm Them.” “Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said the regulation will severely hurt West Virginia by reducing jobs and unnecessarily increasing the cost of power for its citizens. ‘This latest announcement is yet another example of the EPA’s inappropriate use of its regulatory authority to set policy for our country,’ Tomblin said. ‘… We should be working to make our country more energy independent and create jobs, not harm them.’” (“Sen. Manchin: EPA Fully Engaged In A War On Coal,” The Herald-Dispatch, 3/27/12)


Then-Presidential Candidate Obama, On His Energy Plans In 2008: “If Somebody Wants To Build A Coal Plant, They Can – It’s Just That It Will Bankrupt Them…” OBAMA: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With The San Francisco Chronicle‘s Editorial Board, 1/17/08)

  • In 2007, Then-Presidential Candidate Said “I Don’t Think There’s Much Of A Role For Clean Coal In Energy Independence,” And “Clean-Coal Is Not The Route To Go In The United States.” BIDEN: “I don’t think there’s much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there’s a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change. Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives.” (Amanda Little, “An Interview With Joe Biden About Energy And The Environment,”, 8/30/07)

Biden, In 2008: “No Coal Plants Here In America.” BIDEN: “We’re not supporting clean coal. Guess what, China is building two every week – two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States. … No coal plants here in America. Build them – if they’re going to build them over there, make them clean because they’re killing you.” (Joe Biden, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Maumee, OH, 9/16/08)

  • In 2007, Biden Ranked Coal Ahead Of High-Fructose Corn Syrup And A Terrorist Attack As More Likely To Contribute To The Death Of An Average American. HBO’s BILL MAHER: “Senator Biden, forgetting about the upcoming Iowa caucus for just a moment, which would you honestly say is more likely to contribute to the death of your average American: a terrorist strike or high-fructose corn syrup and air that has too much coal in it?” BIDEN: “Air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack. But that is not in any way to diminish the fact that a terrorist attack is real. It is not an existential threat to bringing down the country, but it does have the capacity, still, to kill thousands of people. But hundreds of thousands of people die and their lives are shortened because of coal plants, coal-fired plants and because of corn syrup.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Slate, Yahoo, The Huffington Post Presidential Forum, 9/13/07)

The Wall Street Journal: “For Three Years The Environmental Protection Agency Has Imposed A De Facto Ban On New Coal-Fired Power While Doing Everything It Can To Harm Existing Coal Plants.” (Editorial, “Killing Coal,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/5/12)

  • The Wall Street Journal: “The Agency Is Conceding That Coal Development Has Been Shut Down As A Result Of Its Many New Regulations, Such As The Recent Mercury Rule And The Illegal Permitting Delays That A Federal Appeals Court Slapped Down Last Week.” (Editorial, “Killing Coal,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/5/12)

The Wall Street Journal: Coal Is Not Part Of Obama’s “All Of The Above” Energy Strategy. “Everyone in Washington including President Obama claims to favor an ‘all of the above’ energy portfolio. As misguided as that is-far better to let markets decide which energy sources to develop-the EPA has now admitted that Mr. Obama doesn’t really mean it. Coal is not part of his ‘all.’” (Editorial, “Killing Coal,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/5/12)


As Head Of The EPA’s Clean Air Division, McCarthy Has “Been A Central Player In Developing Greenhouse-Gas Rules.” “She has already been a central player in developing greenhouse-gas rules proposed last year that would effectively rule out new coal-fired power plants using existing commercially viable technology.” (Tennille Tracy, Keith Johnson, and Ryan Tracy, “Insider Emerges As Top Contender For EPA Job,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/14/13)

  • FLASHBACK: In April, McCarthy Assured The Senate That The EPA Was Not “Currently Developing Any Existing Source GHG Regulations For Power Plants.” “Now that the president is proceeding with regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Senate Republicans are likely to be even tougher on McCarthy, who informed them in April the agency was not drafting such regulations. In responses submitted April 30 to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s top Republican David Vitter (La.), McCarthy made the point three times, in almost exactly the same phrase: ‘EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power plants,’ she wrote, referring to greenhouse gas emissions.”

At Obama’s EPA, McCarthy Took On “Much Of The Heavy Lifting Of Writing, Structuring, And Implementing” “Controversial New Climate And Clean Air Rules.” “EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has taken most of the fire from Republicans as her agency rolls out a slew of controversial new climate and clean air rules. But McCarthy, the EPA assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, has taken on much of the heavy lifting of writing, structuring, and implementing the rules.” (Coral Davenport, “EPA Official Was Romney’s ‘Green Quarterback,’” National Journal, 9/22/11)

McCarthy “Helped Fashion Tough New Emissions Standards” That “Would Make It Virtually Impossible To Build Any New Coal-Fired Power Plants In The United States.” “As a senior E.P.A. official in Mr. Obama’s first term, she helped fashion tough new emissions standards for cars and light trucks, tightened standards for mercury and other harmful pollutants in the air, and issued the first proposed regulations for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants for new power plants. Those new rules would make it virtually impossible to build any new coal-fired power plants in the United States.” (John Broder and Matthew Wald, “Obama To Nominate New Heads For Energy Department And EPA,” The New York Times , 3/4/13)

McCarthy Is In Charge Of Writing New EPA Emissions Rules That “Would Essentially Bar Construction Of Any New Coal-Fired Power Plants.” “The E.P.A., which the Supreme Court granted authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, is in the midst of writing regulations governing such emissions from new power plants. Those rules, expected to be completed this year, would essentially bar construction of any new coal-fired power plants unless they included the means to capture carbon gases, a technology that does not yet exist on a commercial scale.” (John Broder and Matthew Wald, “Cabinet Picks Could Take On Climate Policy,” The New York Times , 3/5/13)



Natural Gas would be the way to go, if we really had a global warming problem, but we don’t.  Conversion to natural gas should not be forced by government.  If it is, our electric bills will go up.  How did you allow these clowns to be elected anyway ?

Obama and Biden don’t care if we die.  They support UN Agenda 21 and that calls for global population reduction from 7 billion humans to 500,000 humans, all huddled in transit villages and ruled by their Global Communist government. Killing our energy production is part of the plan to destroy the private sector, enslave and dispose of us.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader