To be modified

The EPA loves Mother Nature but is not very fond of human beings!

During his  speech announcing a run for the US Senate against incumbent Robert P. Casey Jr. at Fisher’s Barney in on October 21, 2011 in Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania, in response to a question, Brian Kelly introduced the first three prongs of his now infamous RRR plan for economic recovery and job creation. Each prong of course is represented by a solitary letter, “R.”. Even before that, Kelly had begun to address his campaign against the major over-regulations, from which Americans suffer in business and in their personal lives. 

Kelly hails from Wilkes-Barre and both his campaign announcement and his RRR plan were greeted by the Democrats and Republicans with abundant applause. Nobody wants government in control of their lives. Earlier in the week, Kelly had similar outings in Philadelphia and Harrisburg where he received the endorsement of the Independence Hall TEA Party and the Independence Hall TEA Party PAC.

Upon his return from the week of announcements and endorsements, in addition to beginning his work on a book reflecting the salient notions of his campaign, which he called RRR, available on this site for free, Kelly read and reread the book he had in progress and which was almost completed. This earlier book was titled, Kill the EPA, the book which we are now discussing. We have a lot more to say about Kill the EPA, right here an this site. Take the link to read it. 

Kill the EPA

So Humans Can Live!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B  R  I  A  N    W.    K  E  L  L  Y

 

 


Copyright © 2012, Brian W. Kelly                                                      Editor Brian P. Kelly

Kill the EPA

 

All rights reserved:  No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning, faxing, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher, LETS GO PUBLISH, in writing.

Disclaimer: Though judicious care was taken throughout the writing and the publication of this work that the information contained herein is accurate, there is no expressed or implied warranty that all information in this book is 100% correct.  Therefore, neither LETS GO PUBLISH, nor the author accepts liability for any use of this work.

Trademarks: A number of products and names referenced in this book are trade names and trademarks of their respective companies.  For example, iSeries and AS/400 are trademarks of the IBM Corporation and Windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

Referenced Material:  The information in this book has been obtained through personal and third party observations and copious reading over many years.  Where unique information has been provided or extracted from other sources, those sources are acknowledged within the text of the book itself.  Thus, there are no formal footnotes nor is there a bibliography section.

Published by:       LETS GO PUBLISH!

                                Brian P. Kelly, Publisher

                                P.O. Box 834

                                Scranton, PA 18503

                                This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

                                www.letsgopublish.com

 

Library of Congress Copyright Information Pending

Book Cover Design by Michele Thomas

ISBN Information: The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is a unique machine-readable identification number, which marks any book unmistakably.  The ISBN is the clear standard in the book industry. 159 countries and territories are officially ISBN members.  The Official ISBN For this book is:

978-0-9802132-8-7

___________________________________________________________________ 

The price for this work is :                                                                           $19.95 USD

10            9            8            7            6            5            4            3            2            1

Release Date:                                                                                              January, 2012

 

Dedication

To Brian Patrick, Michael Patrick, Kathleen Patricia

My Wonderful Children

At the Top of All My Lists for a Long Time!

And Forever!

 

 

 

 



Acknowledgments

I would like to thank many, many people for helping me in this effort. A list of most of the people is included in the hard copy of the book.

To sum up my acknowledgments, as I do in every book that I have written, I am compelled to offer that I am truly convinced that "the only thing you can do alone in life is fail."  Thanks to my family, good friends, and a wonderful helping team, I was not and continue to be --- not alone.
 

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 The “God” of the EPA is Mother Nature........................ 1

Chapter 2 Barack Obama Has Awakened a Sleeping Nation?.15

Chapter 3 Was Silent Spring Too Loud?....................................... 23

Chapter 4 Obama Snake Oil........................................................... 49

Chapter 5 The Delta Smelt.............................................................. 69

Chapter 6 The EPA Is Obama’s Tool to Marginalize America... 75

Chapter 7 Who Thinks the EPA Should Die?............................... 85

Chapter 8 The End of Incandescent Light.................................... 95

Chapter 9 Humans are EPA Enemy # 1..................................... 111

Chapter 10 Obama Is the Master Game Player........................ 121

Chapter 11 We’re Broke!............................................................... 129

Chapter 12 Turn EPA Over to States........................................... 147

Chapter 13 DDT & World Population Control............................ 165

Chapter 14 The Truth about CFCs............................................... 187

Chapter 15 The Best Solution to the Freon Non-Problem...... 199

Chapter 16 Some Final Thoughts............................................... 219

Lets Go Publish! Books................................................................. 230

 

Preface:          

Jobs are hard to come by anywhere in the world today including the United States. Even some liberals are starting to say that “you can blame the government for that.”  In this day and age, you can blame the government for lots more than that, and nobody would think you were kidding.

Despite no jobs for anybody else, the US government is growing in terms of employees at a record pace. Yet, there is less and less real work for government workers. And, so agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that originally did good work in its advisory role to the President have taken more than one step into what Rod Serling would call the Twilight Zone of “regulation theory.” Before we go there, let’s look at the EPA in its best light, as provided for us all from Wikipedia:

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 3, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress. The current administrator is Lisa P. Jackson. The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.”

That is just about 18,000 too many. My original statistics showed the EPA at 17,000 but the Wikipedia quote above is just a bit more current.

The EPA was once a small agency that cared about humans first. The original EPA took its charter seriously and did its best to do all it could for America and Americans. Those days are long gone.

This new EPA cares very little for our country. The EPA of today is working on a number of new best sellers; one edition is even more silly than the next, but equally harmful. When you are introduced to the new EPA regulations in detail in this book, in the media, or on the Internet, they will appear to be even sillier than the list of “about to be released” EPA best seller titles that we show immediately below. The list below is facetious but telling. The real list is dangerous and it threatens our freedom and our sustenance as a country. Ask the EPA about it while they exist. I hope this book places them on the endangered species list.

 

The EPA’s Top 12 Hits

The Clean Toilet Act

The Better Urine than Mine (pronounced my-in) Act

The Mother Nature First Act

The Single Ply Toilet Paper Act of 2011

The Don’t Drive after Midnight or Noon Act.

The Chinese Light Bulb Act

The Greenhouse Gases Are Not Found in Greenhouses Act

The Sulfur Dioxide Restroom Purity Act.

The Rotten Egg Act.

The Rotten Tomato Act a.k.a. the Leachate Act of 1979

The My Globe Is Warming Act

The Act Act

And many others.

So much for EPA humor for now!

It really was not too long after its inception that The EPA became a monster in size and in its intrusive tactics. The typical victims of the EPA are small businesses who do not have the legal staff to withstand the continual onslaught. People had been affected indirectly through increased costs but with the Light Bulb act, the EPA now even terrorizes US households.

Lately, to gain even more notoriety the EPA is trying to become a monster to large businesses. Around the time of year when I wrote most of this book, when Halloween was close by, it would have been natural to create a mask about the monster EPA. However, nobody has ever seen the entirety of this 18,000 headed hydra. But, we can imagine how ugly and frightful it would be.

The EPA has also become a monster to other large US agencies. For example the Environmental Protection Agency EPA likes playing big sister to the Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DOE), and others. . In addition to other missions, the DOT is responsible for minimizing the exhaust gas emissions of automobiles and other vehicles. The EPA stepped in recently and gave DOT a new assignment.

The agency was forced to add greenhouse gases to their list of things that must be OK with your automobile when it is inspected. Considering the science on greenhouse gases is incomplete, many wonder exactly what will be measured. In all silliness, but truthful nonetheless, CO2, a gas humans freely exhale when breathing, has been declared a noxious greenhouse gas. Clearly the EPA has gone wild. They do not mention whether the exhalant must contain garlic or other malodorous scents in addition to the CO2. For right now, CO2 exhalant may be just enough for the car to have a problem passing inspection with this picky set of regulators.

You may recall the government-sponsored Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS). You and I knew this as “Cash for Clunkers.” It was an economic porkulus program that ran between July and August 2009. Owners of drivable, registered vehicles less than 25 years old and rated at 18 mpg or less (EPA combined) were able to scrap those cars and trucks in exchange for $3,500 or $4,500 credits toward the purchase of more fuel-efficient new vehicles. The only sure long-term winners were those who cashed in low-value clunkers for $3,500 or $4,500 new-car credits. The air sure does not seem much different.

Quite suddenly during the program, you may recall, Obama’s EPA ran out of money because Americans can recognize a deal when they see one. Thank the EPA for saving the air from all those clunkers.

By the way, I know some families who have adult children who are college graduates but cannot get employment in the EPA-controlled Obama economy. They were not happy with the Cash for Clunkers program for non-environmental reasons. They thought the program was to help Americans get better cars. They did not tune into the rationale for the program, which was to kill all the old exhaust emitting clunkers so the air would supposedly be cleaner for us all. So, now, when these frugal new college grads who have to live with their parents to break even in the new economy, go looking for their next car in the $3000 to $5000 range, there are still few choices. Obama’s EPA took them off the road. They had their engines frozen and then were crushed. Those left are actually more expensive than they would have otherwise been.

Obama literally crushed all those cars. So, overall, who did the program help? In typical EPA fashion, it stole from taxpayers to put something into somebody else’s pocket so that somebody else, another taxpayer, would be left without, when they needed transportation. Thank you EPA! Did the taxpayers benefit by this EPA driven program. No, we did not.

This is a serious book. I take leave of a serious tone periodically and more often in this preface because I cannot believe the EPA thinks the things it does address serious problems. Moreover, their solutions are never harmless. They prescribe preposterous things and then they dig in and make sure that they are enforced. All Americans lose.

Why did I write this book?

The quick answer is because it needed to be written.

In all my years of eligibility to vote, I cannot recall voting for any of the powerful brood of 18,000 members of the EPA. Yet, they have become more important than the President and the Congress in 2011. That is simply unconstitutional.

The President and his coterie figured out ways to get “legislation through the Congress without Congress even being in session.” The notion of an executive order is a Constitutional privilege of the President and has been for some time. It is to be used as a gap-filler. Executive orders are not intended to create battles over separation of powers. They are not intended to overrule the Congress of the United States.

All of that made sense until now, forty-three presidents after our founding. The difference now is that the President is Barack H. Obama. As a former Constitutional Law Professor, he has decided that he need not have any regard for the Founders and their chief work, the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps this President is the first of many to come that never received the proper grounding in American History. Perhaps Obama wants his way or his minions get to go on the highway. Perhaps he has instructed his team to act accordingly. It does not matter. This President has become a tyrant. That makes the EPA a tyrannical agency, and indeed they are, and indeed they must be eliminated.

I wrote this book not because of any nice Obama qualities but because he is an avowed progressive Marxist and his actions show disdain for our country. With his executive orders, the unaccountable czars, and the many agencies that mindlessly do his bidding, he has intentionally usurped the power of Congress. This has permitted his major enforcer agency, the EPA to accomplish what he could not accomplish with Congress when he tried working with them.

As you read this book, think of two phrases. In our future, we have but two choices: 1 “Kill the EPA,” or (2) Bring on the Donald and “Fire the EPA!”  Either choice works for me.

I hope you enjoy this book and I hope that it inspires you to take action to help change the members of the government of the United States by replacing every member of Congress and the Senate (up for reelection) unless you haveverifiable statements that they are not responsible for perpetrations against the people. Also, think seriously about replacing the big head of the EPA, today’s President, Barack Hussein Obama. You can help make the US a far better country.

I wish you the best

 

Brian Kelly (For US Senate)

 


 

 

About the Author

 

 

Brian W. Kellyis a retired Assistant Professor in the Business Information Technology (BIT) program at Marywood University, where he also served as the IBM i and midrange systems technical advisor to the IT faculty. Kelly developed and taught many college and professional courses in the IT and business areas. He is also a contributing technical editor to IT Jungle's "The Four Hundred" and "Four Hundred Guru" Newsletters.   

 

A former IBM Senior Systems Engineer, he has an active consultancy in the information technology field, (www.kellyconsulting.com). He is the author of dozens of books and numerous articles about current IT topics. Kelly is a frequent speaker at COMMON, IBM conferences, and other technical conferences and user group meetings across the United States.

 

This is the sixth political book Kelly has written and it joins his other great informers: Taxation without Representation, Obama’s Seven Deadly Sins, Healthcare Accountability, Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! and Americans Need Not Apply! This is Mr. Kelly's 45th published book 

Chapter 8

The End of Incandescent Light

 

The EPA is nuts!

It is daylight as I write but there are still lights on in most homes in most cities in Pennsylvania. That really drives the EPA nuts. More than likely they are incandescent light bulbs. That too drives the EPA nuts. By now, the EPA is plenty nuts.

Over the years, the people have grown accustomed to the warm glow of the incandescent light bulb invented by Thomas Alva Edison. You may know that Edison was born in Ohio, a neighboring state to Pennsylvania and he grew up in Michigan. Edison invented so many things that were useful in his day and ours, that he received 1093 patents.

He lived the spirit of Americanism at a time when even Presidents enjoyed being American. Such exceptionalism was the order of the day in Edison’s time. There was much to be invented, and America was a welcoming place for inventors. Today Edison would need so many EPA permits to conduct his experiments, that he would be lucky to invent much of anything. 

The Obama EPA for example, as you may know, orders everybody around, including simple homeowners like you and I. The thinking around the EPA is that homeowners are culprits and are to blame for bad air, bad water, and a host of other maladies. One of our big sins is that we burn light bulbs. And, so by order of the EPA, in December 2011, all of us will learn the depth of the disdain the EPA has for home-town America. 

 

Figure 8-1 Thomas Edison – Source Internet Unknown

Copy does not reproduce images

No 100 watt incandescent light bulbs will be available for purchase in 2012. The EPA won this battle. Over the next few years, all incandescent light bulbs will be off the market. Selling and buying incandescent light bulbs will be against the law. Can you imagine the light bulb luminaries who get arrested and find themselves doing time in the big house on a light-bulb rap? After over 100 years, the EPA found out that light bulbs were bad for the health of Mother Nature. They are, by the way, OK for human nature. So, how did this happen?

Congress did it and Obama likes it

Obama’s EPA does not get the full whack on the notion that the incandescent light bulb is about to become illegal. Politicians in Washington, including our own from Pennsylvania voted for a goofy law in 2007 that banned cheap incandescent bulbs in favor of the more expensive and carcinogenic compact florescent bulbs (CFCs).

Obviously the people we elect think we cannot make good marketplace decisions in our day-to-day lives. So, Congress proposed and passed legislation to protect all of us dummies from ourselves. In mid 2011, Congress began to rethink the ban and brought it up again, even after the TEA party had cleansed the house of all of the supposed florescent lovers. Yet, the bill did not pass because of some unknown reason making me suggest that even the freshman in Congress need to be extricated in the next election. Who do they think they represent: morons? The 2010 elections brought with it representatives who do not trust their constituents. It’s time to repay the favor.

What is wrong with consumer choice and soft yellow lighting or less expensive incandescent light bulbs? Why every home should instead be subjected to the unnatural, office-like white light of Chinese-made pricey mini fluorescents confounds the logical mind. Have even Republicans given in to the Nanny State?

The most annoying proponent of the light-bulb ban by the EPA is the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. This guy is not with most Americans on the notion of needing government to make decisions in our every-day lives. Chu loves the notion that all Americans get to buy their lightbulbs from China instead of America. Imagine him saying these words as he did, and you will have his speech verbatim:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

Obviously, Chu likes the notion of Big Brother as the government can preselect everything for the dumb citizens and of course illegals, also so there is no guesswork for the feeble brained population. Government will do the selecting and it will be perfect.

One time Senator John Warner (R–VA) thinks Chu is spot on and he offers his thoughts on the one time potentiality of repealing the 2007 law. : “We’ll be dropping backwards in America’s need to become more energy-efficient.”

Jim Presswood, who is with the environmental activist group, Natural Resources Defense Council, has his own perspective: “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed.” His organization claims that the ban would save consumers $85 per year. So, let me ask, what is the real cost of freedom if a piece of it can be purchased for less than $100.00 per year? Is freedom worth the price-tag in dollars or must it be in blood?

Let me ask you this one question: Do you think our forefathers came to America so that some bureaucrat someplace could make all of their decisions for them? Do you think that either government is much better today or do you think that people are more incompetent? What is the rationale for government being the sole arbiter as to what is good and what is bad for the public? What does the public get to say? Will government actually punish those who break the rules?

So, when the stores run out of incandescent bulbs, and since they are not making them anymore, must we all switch from these simple and cheap light-bulbs that we now use to expensive, dangerous halogen or fluorescent bulbs? Is this an order from the government?

The EPA says these new expensive Chinese-built bulbs are OK but incandescent bulbs are bad. OK, they don’t really say it exactly that way but it sure sounds like it. What they say is that the 100 watt bulb cannot be sold any more as of January 1, 2012. So, shop for all you can while you can. Over the next two years, 75, 60, and 40 watt bulbs will no longer be able to be sold. 

The law is being phased in over the next three years. Here are the dates when you must be ready to change your bulbs if they burn out. Thank the EPA or kill them!

According to the EPA, the second part of the law requires that most light bulbs be 60-70% more efficient than the standard incandescent today; this will go into effect in 2020. Many compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and many Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) can meet this requirement today, shaving energy usage compared to standard incandescent bulbs by 75%.

What the EPA doesn’t tell you is that these new bulbs are very expensive and there are special procedures to assure your family is safe if one of them breaks. So, don’t break one.

Why is this law needed and how does it benefit consumers?

This is direct from the EPA site: “EISA is eliminating unnecessarily wasteful products from the market.”

Should we be pleased?  EISA is the name of the congressional act but we know that the 2007 act is a brain child of the EPA. I have a question for you. Did you ask for the EISA or the EPA or Congress or anybody to unilaterally eliminate unnecessarily wasteful products? I did not ask them either. I think the iPad is unnecessary. Will that be banned eventually? If not, Why not?

This is just another big intrusion of big Obama government in the lives of regular people. If you don’t see enough of him on TV, wait until Obama is in your doctor’s office! He is already in your light fixtures. The Obama intrusions are not fully appreciated, but when all the pictures in the Doctor’s office are replaced with pictures of Obama you will know what Obamacare really means. It will be a lot more Obama than care… but that is another book.  

Perhaps the EPA guerrillas will take the time to visit your neighborhood and mine to see if there are any other issues. Maybe you are an energy perpetrator and you keep certain of your lights on too long? Maybe you use too many garbage bags. Maybe your dog excretes amounts that are dangerously over the farm manure limit?  What’s next? Don’t worry!  Obama has a few surprises in store and you’ll see them when the thousands of regulations that are being held for campaign reasons are released once the big election is over and the campaigner in chief emerges again as our president.

GE, Thomas Edison and Jeffrey Immelt

By now, many Americans have heard of Jeffrey Immelt, the head of General Electric, the company originally created by Thomas Edison. Founded in 1890 as the Edison General Electric Company, the company merged with the Thomson-Houston Company, its major competitor, in 1892. The name of the new company became the General Electric Company.

Jeffrey Immelt is no Thomas Edison. He couldn’t tie Edison’s shoes. Yet, over the last year or so, Immelt has served as Obama’s Job’s Czar. Despite all the tax credits gained by GE for its green jobs program and its friendship with Obama, in all the years since Edison, the mighty GE has been unable to figure out how to make a better incandescent light bulb in America—one that meets the Obama EPA standards displayed above. That’s almost as hard to believe as the EPA telling us we can’t use these light bulbs anymore.

So, since GE could not meet the government standard, it is taking its light bulb manufacturing business overseas along with a lot of other jobs, even some that may be giving a few defense secrets to the Chinese. But, hey, Obama wants all countries to compete equally so for him, helping the Chinese develop better weaponry may be good. It is also possible that President Obama did not tell Mr. Immelt that the jobs he created as the “Jobs Czar” were supposed to be US-based and Obama was looking for net gains-- not net losses in jobs. But, then again maybe Obama thinks Immelt is doing fine.

Despite Americans not really wanting to give up any rights to any US agencies, in the fall of 2010, the EPA agency’s regulations forced the last major GE factory that was making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States to close.  This factory was around for most of the time from the 1870’s when Edison first shed light on all subjects. GE admitted that a lot of the jobs at the facility were already gone when the remaining 200 workers at the plant lost their jobs in 2010.

In 2011, most Americans know that GE had some good fortune. It got some extra funding from taxpayers – about $7 billion dollars in tax credits, rebates, and in gifts. One would think GE would be motivated to set off a boom of industrial activity and job growth in the U.S. by taking the $7 billion tax refund bonanza and using it to create and then manufacture whatever the EPA required as the replacement for the incandescent light bulb.

Hey even if they sold bulbs for a slight loss, GE would still be way ahead. Why did they not do that? Did Obama tell them to go to China to make the world a fairer place in which to compete? Since 60% of Americans agree that Obama does not hate America, is it a fair question to ask if Obama really wants America to win? Don’t forget that 40% of Americans think the President actually hates us all.

Let me rephrase my negative rant from above. No matter what it happened to be, since $7 billion came from taxpayer pockets, why would the Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt, the head of GE, the guy who was gifted with $7 Billion from the pockets of US taxpayers not build the replacement bulb, if it needed to be built, in America. A lot of American plants could have been built for the $7billion. A corollary to that question is “Why did Obama not fire him as the Jobs czar?” Maybe Obama does not like manufacturing jobs in America?

Regardless, GE makes its own decisions and it chose not to invest in America.  Thank you GE. I know I will buy any product, including light-bulbs, from any company other than GE. Actions have consequences. Don’t bother stamping GE on anything anymore for it will not motivate me one iota to buy it.

Many of us are learning that the class of light-bulb favored by the EPA is known as a compact florescent or CFL. Unfortunately, the EPA is not in the Jobs business and they have been rightfully accused of killing a lot of jobs. It doesn’t seem to bother them. In this case, the leading replacement bulbs for incandescent bulbs are made entirely overseas, mostly in China. How can Obama claim he has a jobs bill when he cares nothing about real jobs in real businesses?

So, all of America’s light-bulbs now will come from China, and the bulbs will not be incandescent. They will mostly be CFL’s.  Maybe this is good news for Obama, but not for me. The bulbs made by GE will also be made in GE’s many China plants.

To be cynical about it, and we should be, the brainiacs in Congress, the White-house, and the inglorious EPA have no problem forcing Americans to stop using US products so they can buy products made in foreign countries. Pat Doyle, 54, a former GE worker, who put in 26 years working at this plant, summed it up. “First, we were sold out by the government. Then we were sold out by GE.”

 

Figure 8-2 GE Plant Once Operating Test the bulbs

Copy does not reproduce images 

 

We can blame this on the cronyism and the corruption of the Obama regime and the worst Senate of all time--the 111thand 112th.  Add the fact that the EPA has learned how to be Obama’s chief enforcer and you have enough reasons for why there are no jobs in America-- so stop the search.

Back when Edison was innovating in the 1800’s, he had the freedom to invent and manufacture because the government back then respected the Constitution. Many jobs were created from Edison’s inventions. Today, the Obama EPA has the power to inhibit liberty and freedom and invention.  And it has the power to ship jobs overseas. It is ridiculous but it is true.  Regulations are just one of the ways the Obama regime, with Senator Bob Casey’s full concurrence, is dismantling America, and assuring we have high unemployment for a long time. 

You see, the Obama EPA and most regulators do not like inventions because most require power.

Regulators do not like anything powered by anything. They don’t even like humans from Pennsylvania or Ohio or Montana needing to burn anything just to be warm in the winter or to be able to see to read. 

The EPA has found that human breath contains a noxious gas that also needs to be banned.  No, it is not garlic. It is CO2, and I wish I were kidding.  There are elements in the EPA, who because of their zeal for a nature-first, human-last environment, are also for population control. They believe that, because of his very existence on the planet, man is a major polluter. They would love to reduce the footprint of mankind on this planet so it can be safe for animals, insects, and even some nasty flora and fauna.

Blaming people for exhaling gives those in the population control circles more reasons for wanting less and less people on earth. Some suggest the EPA won’t be happy until 90% of humans disappear from the planet. Knowing that, it makes me question the EPA’s motivations for any of their often silly regulations.

What if humans have no breath?  Don’t worry!  They’re not going to take us off the planet that easy. I don’t think the “Ban Breath Act” would pass Congress.  Even the most corrupt politicians still have to breathe. 

That’s not all that the “blame America first crowd” of far left progressives find fault with today. They find people, especially American people to be major polluters and therefore responsible for most of the earth’s global warming problems. They worship Al Gore as if his bad breath and his bad medicine is from a prophet. For returning their love, Al Gore has picked up over a hundred million dollars in net worth since leaving the vice presidency. And since I cannot verify it either way, I would suspect his breath is no better.

As much as the environmentalists love Al Gore, they must have a great disdain for the legacy of Thomas Edison and of course for Philadelphia’s own Ben Franklin. Considering that Franklin is one of those credited with discovering electricity through his lightening & kite experiments, he would not be in the favor of the EPA.

With the work of some other scientists, who helped to perfect electricity for major uses, Thomas Edison never could have invented the incandescent light bulb in the first place without Franklin’s electricity. The ban on incandescent light bulbs would be unnecessary if there were no electricity. Of course that also means that Americans would not have to begin to buy light-bulbs from China next year—again if there were no electricity. How far back to nature does the EPA want us to go? We know that teepees are out because paintings of early America show smoke coming out of the teepees—again because humans occupied these dwellings.

Concluding thoughts

Let’s end this chapter about the end of incandescent light with some thoughts from Jack Cafferty of CNN, a certifiable liberal / progressive. Cafferty is often going after the wrong causes but he is right on in his analysis of this one about GE and Jeffrey Immelt.

Remember, Jeffrey Immelt is the CEO of GE, the one time maker of Edison’s incandescent light bulbs. It is also the company that moved its light bulb business from the US to china in 2010 because of the EPA’s banning of incandescent light, it.

Once companies find they can offshore with impunity—moving jobs to China and they still make a big buck and still get big tax breaks from Obama, they have a tendency to keep doing it. Corporations are not in business to please presidents or any other American.

Let’s say the EPA forced them to learn how to get by without Americans and they learned so well, they can do it well on their own now without any help from EPA bans.

Hold on to your hats. GE is moving its X-ray business to China, and that is driving CNN’s Jack Cafferty nuts. In Cafferty’s words:

“Here is more evidence of the suicide mission this country is on: General Electric announced it's moving its 115-year-old X-ray business from Waukesha, Wisconsin to Beijing, China. The X-ray business is part of General Electric's GE Healthcare unit, and this move is just part of a broader plan by GE to invest $2 billion in China.

This will become the first GE business to be headquartered there. A handful of the unit's top executives will be transferred to China but otherwise, the company says, none of the 150 staffers in the Milwaukee-area facility will lose jobs or be transferred. However, GE plans to hire more than 65 engineers and a support staff at a new facility in China.”

Cafferty can’t get over that General Electric's Chief Executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is one of President Obama's advisers on U.S. job creation! Obama picked Immelt, a self-described Republican, hoping to have a man in the Jobs seat that could help in negotiating with the Republican-controlled House on a number of important items such as deficit reduction, jobs programs, and health care.

Overall, it has been a bad PR move for Obama but the President has stuck with it for some reason. On top of moving much of its business to China, and of course no trade secrets will go with the move, GE paid no income taxes last year and it qualified for a huge $3 billion tax credit. In other words, taxpayers paid GE for operating its business.

Because he was so irate on this, Cafferty opened it up for comments from the public. Since GE has basically turned off the lights and closed the door on America, I will close this section of the final thoughts with some of the comments from Americans, which Cafferty accepted when he asked this question about GE: 

“Here’s my question to you: General Electric is moving its X-ray business to China. What message does this send Americans?” Some of the ones that made it on the air include the following:

“Brad in Portland, Oregon:   It tells the U.S. that free trade is a scam, and we need to have fair trade instead. It's too easy for companies to outsource to China and bring the goods and services back to the U.S. with few restrictions. We need to have tariffs on imports to account for the difference in labor costs between the two countries, and then China can compete with American manufacturers on the basis of quality instead of cheap labor.”

“Donna:  Does anyone see a conflict of interest here? Why would a corporate chief executive move an arm of his business to China when he is responsible for jobs in America? I find it outrageous!”

“Lori in Pennsylvania:  It says that U.S. company executives and stock holders are greedy, and want to share as little of the profits they make as possible. I guess the national debt crisis hasn't opened their eyes as to what happens when millions of average citizens don't have a paying job.”

“D.W. in St. Louis, Missouri:  Thanks for all the tax breaks, Suckers!” 

Chapter 13

DDT & World Population Control

 

Malaria is not bad, unless you get it!

On June 1, 2003, the Senate was preparing to enact an international treaty that had been dubbed the POP’s (persistent organic pollutants) treaty. Thirty some years after DDT was banned in most of the world, the purpose this time was to ban all use of DDT in all countries. How noble? This is despite the millions of people who had already died as a direct result of the U.S. EPA's “no excuses” ban on the chemical. I would have asked: “What about the millions that are still being saved every year by unauthorized use of DDT?

What about them? Do they die now?”

It will be forty years on June 14, 2012 that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, disregarded the advice of his scientific advisors and for political reasons announced a ban on virtually all domestic uses of the pesticide DDT. This was done despite the fact that DDT had earlier been hailed as a "miracle" chemical that repelled and killed mosquitoes that carry malaria, a disease that can not only be fatal to humans, but is difficult to diagnose. The creator of DDT had received a Nobel Peace Prize.

Once bitten, the malaria parasite heads for the liver. It reproduces quickly before re-entering the bloodstream where it attacks the red blood cells. It can take from about one week to a year after being bitten for malaria to appear. Depending on where you are at the time, you live or die. About 2000 British hikers every year, who love to frequent malarial countries, come home very sick with Malaria. It takes weeks to get better. Nine of the 2000 die.  

You may know that a number of famous kings, emperors, popes, singers, and adventurers, either contracted malaria or died from Malaria. Al Jolson, Mahatma Gandhi, Genghis Khan, Pope Gregory V, and Davy Crockett are among those who have had serious bouts or died from malaria. At least eight US Presidents from George Washington to Lincoln, to Teddy Roosevelt to JFK were malaria victims in their lifetimes. When malaria does not kill a person, in many cases it weakens them severely, as was the case of Teddy Roosevelt’s who did not live much longer. This disease has no right to still be in existence. It is a killer, and it has gained strength during the EPA “reign of terror.”

Malaria, yellow fever, hemorrhagic fevers of all kinds had killed millions and millions of humans long before DDT came along. DDT is responsible for over a centillion infectious mosquitoes being eliminated. Yet, it has been outlawed in the US by our own EPA. Additionally, the US EPA supports efforts to ban the substance in all countries. Knowing the tactics of the EPA, you can bet they demand compliance regardless of the country. Think of all the deaths this has caused when no other effective treatment has replaced DDT!   

From the outset, the real scientific community was outspoken in their opposition to Ruckelshaus for imposing such a ban. Their hypothesis indicated that there was no evidence that DDT posed a hazard to human health. Yet the ban still took effect. The EPA takes no prisoners.

As expected, there has been a return of the long-gone diseases in the world. Simple diseases like malaria, which had effectively been wiped out, have come back with a vengeance. Years ago malaria had been eradicated by science. The scientific world had helped mankind. The EPA used junk science to push its secret agenda of world population control in the United States and through its surrogate agencies across the world. So, DDT, the miracle chemical that had been permitting people to live was banned from the globe. That’s how powerful the EPA is. That is just one reason why the EPA must be eliminated. The world would be better bringing back DDT and killing the EPA.

The case for bringing back DDT is strong but so is the EPA. Four hundred quadrillion or more nasty mosquitoes—perhaps even a centillion, had died but millions of people, who would have died in other times, lived substantially longer lives while DDT was available. Despite its miracle properties, the EPA and its dependent surrogates across the world successfully banned the mosquito / malaria killing pesticide from where it was needed the most. Since that fact is irrefutable, it comes with this fact; the EPA for years has been one of the principal agencies responsible for millions of deaths worldwide from malaria.

With DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) banned, in many mosquito-infested countries, there was no longer an effective way to control the disease carrying mosquitoes.  The EPA would not want to take the blame for unneeded deaths for political reasons, but they are to blame, nonetheless. Malaria has killed lots and lots and lots more people than DDT ever could have. The EPA and its politically motivated surrogates across the world need to be held responsible.

History and uses of DDT

There is much information on DDT on the Internet and in libraries across the world. This short introduction to DDT has some basis in a short introductory chemistry course from Duke University. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pest1.html

The formulation for the compound known as DDT was first created by a German chemist, Othmar Zeidler in 1874. Zeidler was a putterer and very bright. He had made hundreds of chemical compounds before DDT but he had not documented any purpose for them, and so his notes offered no clue about a productive use for any of them. Over sixty years later, a Swiss scientist, Dr. Paul Müller, in 1939 followed Zeidler’s formulation and created his own DDT. From this, he discovered that it was very effective in killing insects. We might add, “to say the least.”

Almost ten years later, in 1948, Müller won the Nobel prize in medicine for this work.

In World War II, soldiers were literally being eaten alive by bugs such as bedbugs, fleas, body lice (cooties) that were known to carry the typhus disease (Rickettsia bacteria ). To combat the diseases, soldiers were dusted with Müller’s compound which was DDT. It was so effective as an insect killer that some who observed the landscape before and after nicknamed it the "atomic bomb" of pesticides. It is documented as saving the lives of thousands of soldiers in its first usage. For two weeks the soldiers were doused, and though they reported clouds of dust from the chemical compound, there are still no documented DDT deaths. However, as we have cited in this chapter, there had been lots of deaths from the pestilence caused by the bugs.

DDT later was used on farms in the US to control some common agricultural pests that would destroy crops in short order.

 

  • various potato beetles
  • coddling moth (which attacks apples)
  • corn earworm
  • cotton bollworm
  • tobacco budworms

In addition to its use in farming, DDT was used extensively to control certain insects which carried other diseases such as encephalitis, hemorrhagic fever, malaria, yellow fever, and West Nile virus. These diseases are deadly to say the least. DDT as a weapon against the freight carrying bugs is even deadlier.

From the mid 1940’s to the 1970’s DDT was used extensively in the US and throughout the world. In the United States, at one point we were producing 220 million pounds of DDT a year. In other countries, where the major mosquito carried diseases had been infecting and killing many people, mostly children, DDT wiped out diseases such as malaria for many years.

In 1955, as an example of its effectiveness, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was highly successful in many countries and death rates came down in some countries to zero.

Environmentalists began by trying to save human lives from the toxic effects of too many chemicals in the air. Over time, the emphasis changed so that their purpose became to save nature from their perception of its future decimation because of the footprint of human lives. That is a not so subtle change and it explains why people are not very happy with the EPA and other environmentalists who have gone “whacko.”

For example, “People are expendable to save nature,” is one of the major yet understandably quiet mantra’s of the EPA, whereas the agency itself was formed because people needed help from excessive contaminants in nature’s air.

The early EPA mantra was “Nature is expendable to save people.” Nature of course had no official spokesperson so the EPA took on that role and it has been arguing against regular human beings and the needs of humans, especially for light and heat, ever since. No sane person can permit an organization that cares nothing about humans to protect humans. It is ridiculous.

Back to the history lesson…  By the 1970s, the US began to get worried about DDT's environmental and health effects. The Environmental Protection Agency was formed in December, 1970 in the US by the Nixon administration to deal with pollution. With environmental activism becoming very big in the 1960’s, the elitist money people backed a notion called the Environment Defense Fund. This group won a huge victory in the US and the courts ordered the EPA to deregister DDT as a usable pesticide. Very shortly thereafter, in June 1972, the EPA cancelled all use of DDT on crops. For certain cases of disease control, the EPA allowed very limited use. Knowing one of their priorities is population control it is hard to trust them with the life of a house fly.

By the way, the EPA and other environmental groups love to use the courts rather than the rigid scientific method to prove their opinions. With the courts, all they need is a sympathetic judge and an attorney who is a good persuader. So, there is not always exact science behind EPA decisions and court orders. There is however, a lot of emotion and opinions.

DDT usage today – back to the present

While no longer manufactured or available in the US, DDT continues to be used in other parts of the world, wherever it is available. Despite its documented benefits and the lives it has saved and still could save, the world’s environmental agencies, championed by the EPA have substantially limited the supply and the use of DDT worldwide.

Spokesmen for the mosquito population and the Malaria Disease Propagation Agency (MDPA), when consulted were quite pleased with the DDT ban. There is speculation that for the interview, since the mosquitoes and the parasites are still learning English, EPA personnel had masqueraded as mosquitoes and parasites in order to make those statements appear to have been made by the affected organisms. Even the wicked will do anything to survive.

I hope you are getting my humor. The Trans Malarian Parasitic Orchestra in parasitic circles often plays in deadly spaces. For years it had labeled DDT as Malaria Enemy # 1. These bad guys, when unwrapped from their host mosquito, come from the protozoan parasite from the genus Plasmodium. If this were a total joke, I would tell you that Captain Kirk’s main man, Dr. McCoy, or “Bones,” using a special tricorder app, which could transvobulize the ship’s dilithium crystals into a hermeticsic mélange that could reinfect the infectious plasmodium parasite with neon micro lights along with a subdural implantation of the doofus buffooni virus.

This mélange and its effects have always proven to be deadly to creatures, from one cell in makeup to over five cells, but only in cases when the villains have originated from the planet Plasmodium, once occupied by the Kardashian sisters. As I hope you realize, in the last three paragraphs I jest for effect. Unfortunately the EPA work is no joking matter.

This all boils down to the fact, that when DDT was no longer available for purely political reasons, malaria came back with a vengeance. 

Over the last few years, many tropical countries began to thumb their noses at the environmentalists as the people in their countries were dying almost as quickly as the mosquitoes had been when whacked with DDT. So DDT, by popular demand is in use again in some brave countries that either do not depend on US foreign aid, or who have somehow gained waivers from the EPA. Its use is simply to control malaria and other major diseases to help the people. Its use is not intended to irritate the EPA but yet it does.

From the Duke site, they suggest we all check out this graph from Ceylon, which charts malaria over time. Note that during the 1960’s the disease was just about eradicated in Ceylon from DDT spraying, Note also that when DDT was no longer permitted, malaria made a big comeback. Who are these people that think they can play God with human beings?

We must consider that the battle over DDT use and non-use is like a religion. The environmentalists do not care how many lives are lost as long as the environment is safe for all life—even if the mosquitoes that are saved kill humans in the process.

The environmentalists would actually be mollified if the mosquitoes live and they die. The only thing similar to this death wish is the zealot who places a belt of explosives on his body. Try arguing cases about religion and that is why you will find so many zealots who want DDT to continue to be banned worldwide. After all, only people die.

Now, consider you wake up as the leader in a country in which the infection rate is overwhelming and people are sick all the time and many, mostly children are dying. How much do you care if the EPA tells you that you are not able to help stop the deaths of the many children in your country? What about your own children?

Suppose again that you have a cheap solution to the problem but the source of foreign aid if you cross them will stop you from getting the money to buy DDT? Will you use your own resources to find DDT anywhere you can and pay for it yourself?  Of course you will! Shame on the EPA for putting countries through that exercise, and that is why it must be gone.

The following DDT / malaria stories from some spots in Africa show the thinking of some brave African leaders:

The use of DDT for spraying the inside walls of houses, a proven way to quickly stop the rate of malaria incidence, has made a comeback in African nations. The EPA would rather families starve and to avoid getting malaria, they should use their food money to buy the pesticide soaked expensive netting they claim is safer for the environment than DDT. That would be OK maybe, if lives were secondary. Lives are now the primary motivator and saving them, especially the lives of children is a major priority for African leaders—not the EPA.

Saving lives now in Africa has priority over the fears and the lies of the environmentalists and the environmentalists are not happy about that. So much for population control, which had been that added benefit of the DDT ban—for the whackos.

Logic suggests that when children are taken out by malaria or yellow fever or some other painful death,  the earth and nature suffer even less than when an adult dies of malaria because the number of pollutants a human throws off into the atmosphere in a lifetime is much less when the lifetime is short.  With this logic, it is surprising the EPA lets any of us live. Maybe that is why Obama wants control of healthcare.

Let’s go to Uganda.  In Uganda, caring more about people than the EPA; the Minister of Health, Brigadier Jim Muhwezi, renewed house spraying in the most “malarious” areas. He had the approval of the Ugandan Cabinet.

Muhwezi had critics including the EPA surrogates, but he dismissed them all, saying  "How many people must die of malaria while these debates continue? If DDT can save lives, why not use it as we wait for the alternatives."

His words were reported in the Kampala newspaper, New Vision.

The program has been successful, and when Uganda’s story was originally written, the country of Mauritius was about to be declared malaria free because of its use of DDT.

Zambia is another example. From the time of the DDT ban, malaria incidence and deaths had been climbing. To address this, just as in Uganda, the Health Minister aggressively pursued the use of DDT to fight malaria. The theory came well tested after the great success Zambia had using DDT in the copper mining areas beginning in 2000. After just two years, there were no malaria deaths in the copper mining areas.

Zimbabwe is yet another example of leaders saying “environmentalists are killing our people.” Minister of Health David Parirenyatwa reintroduced DDT to save the children because, according to his words, it was, "cheap and more effective, with a longer residual killing power."  He is quoted in the  Bulawayo Chronicle in October 2003:

"So many people have died of malaria since January and we are doing our best to control it... DDT is very effective, because it sticks for a long time on the walls and kills a lot of mosquitoes with a single spray... South Africa and Swaziland are using it, and I don't see why we should not use it."

Why should DDT not be used until something can be made that is safer?

The US government has no business in environmental regulation for the states or for the rest of the world, especially when their scientific premise is wrong—dead wrong. In the US as we have said many times, there should be no federal regulations at all, since we have the individual states to do that work.  The tenth amendment of the Constitution demands that anything like an EPA should be run by the states.

The biggest stain on America is a government that has grown so large that it has in many ways turned against its own citizens. The EPA is an agent of such a government, and it spreads its wings into less powerful countries commanding, for the sake of population control, not environment protection, that children die of major diseases and the earlier the better.

Before we close this Chapter on DDT, let’s review the two big items that the EPA says will kill us while it advocates the deaths of little children to complete its sordid green agenda, which embraces world population control. Let’s answer these two questions though we have been discussing DDT for awhile already in this chapter.

What is DDT and what is the other major chemical that the EPA does not like?

DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, CCl3CH(C6H4Cl)2, a synthetic organic compound introduced in the 1940s and used as an insecticide.

CFC: Chlorofluorocarbon: a fluorocarbon with chlorine; formerly used as a refrigerant and as a propellant in aerosol cans.

We have already given a brief picture of the DDT issues but we will look at its ban in a little more detail as a sordid means of population control before we move to the next chapter. In the next chapter, we examine the CFC ban in detail so you can get a full picture of what the EPA really is, and why it cannot be trusted to act on our behalf even in a matter in which nobody has to die.

Whereas EPA apologists identify just these two EPA actions (DDT and CFC bans) as the defining items in the EPA’s legacy of greatness, I submit that the EPA response to the perceived issues with DDT and CFCs is exactly the reason why the EPA must go.

EPA apologists, thinking rational human beings will believe they cannot do without the nasty and corrupt EPA, ask how the banning of DDT and CFCs would have been managed in a world in which there was no EPA-devised national standard. To be honest, answering that presumption makes me feel like throwing up. Sorry! 

Of course they are referring to the assertion that the EPA should be eliminated. Then what would we do? Hah? Then what?

My answer is that if there were no ban on either of these products, life would be better and safer for all people, and more people would be living with less government harassment.

To help the EPA apologists remember that the people are tuned into their agenda, let’s go back and review some facts about malaria, add to the fact list, and then close out and go on to Chapter 11 The truth about CFCs.

A quick check of the facts shows that well over a million people continue to die worldwide each year because of the EPA supported ban on DDT and the rise of malaria and other such mosquito borne diseases.  And, just as sure as Global Warming, and the possibility of Al Gore donating all his money to charity are both big hoaxes, the DDT ban and in fact, the CFC ban are also big hoaxes perpetrated by an EPA agency gone wild.

There is also a sinister side to the EPA DDT ban that is difficult to swallow – population control. You may not believe it so we came here to explain why after we first examined where we are worldwide with DDT. Let’s review what Walter Williams has to say:

Dr. Walter Williams, writing for the Jewish World Review in July 2004, http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68highlights the demagoguery and the ideological agenda of the EPA. Dr. Williams is an economist and he is a faculty member at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  Like you, Dr. Williams is not a dummy!

His work rips big holes in any notion that this body uses real science for its conclusions. Millions have paid with their lives for the EPA’s idealism, and thirst for power. Instead of Americans and other world citizens leading miserable lives and even being killed off by bad regulations, let’s get together and kill the EPA! 

Williams writes:

“Ever since Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring," environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted. “

Despite this, EPA zealots and apologists from around the world, armed with little to no supporting science, take on honest overtures to close down this killer agency. They use arguments that have long since been proven to be falsehoods, and pure lies. 

I have lifted a few more paragraphs from William’s piece to show the really sinister, downright sick rationale for the banning of DDT. When you read this you may find yourself muttering: “Maybe somebody did not like poor people. Maybe somebody did not like black people. Maybe somebody did not like the high birthrate in poor black countries, and just maybe somebody is actually using malaria as a form of population control.” Why? Because they are powerful enough; that they can do so.

Williams continues:

“While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that ‘should not be banned.’ According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

“In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, [shhhh!!!! – don’t tell Byron Moore] the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

“In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 -- Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, "Malaria and the DDT Story," Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that "Malaria is a human tragedy," adding, "Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick."
 

--Temporary End of Williams quote---

The EPA should be disbanded for lots of reasons but none greater than the politically corrupt / correct ban on the pesticide known to help people live by wiping out many diseases. For example, check out this quote from The National Academy of Sciences made in 1970, just two years before the political murderers in the EPA imposed their will on the world.

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In only some two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."  A reasonably prudent person would conclude that on balance, DDT is a very helpful product. So, why does the EPA think otherwise?  Answer – their mission is not to save lives.

Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/ddt-37645-malaria-year.html#ixzz1Yb9armZD

Williams Quote continues:

“The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

‘My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.’

“Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,”

‘People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this [referring to malaria deaths] is as good a way as any.’

Let me translate. These people in the environmental community and the EPA have another agenda going on and saving human lives is not part of their agenda. It is called world population control and when DDT was banned, people began to die again and that was not an accident. It was a plan. And the EPA staff was able to smile.

The apologists / zealots will tell you that there are many other “safer” ways to solve the malaria problem. For example, there are these nets sprayed heavily with insecticide that offer protection. But, they cost a zillion dollars and in undeveloped countries that is enough for parents to make a decision as to whether their children die either of malaria or of starvation.

Moreover, requiring the netting as a way of life is like having the people in the undeveloped countries live their lives with a dog-like Elizabethan collar around them to prevent them from getting in trouble and ultimately getting killed by malaria. Forget about stickball or even dancing while wearing the insect net. No wonder people die.

DDT simply kills the perpetrator and the person defended by DDT gets to live a normal life.  No net boys or bubble boys are necessary when the country is armed with DDT.  Just spray a house with small amounts of DDT and it costs a measly $1.44 per year. For $1.44 nobody is going to die, and there is no net needed that offers protection to just one person at a time.  The net and other alternatives are five to 10 times more costly, making them effectively unaffordable in poor countries.

Poor countries often have leaders, who have a great understanding of the rest of the world, and that is why they are the leaders.  Unfortunately, the “greater than thou” rich country emissaries, such as those from the US-EPA that once used DDT themselves to eliminate the problem; threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.  Brave leaders find DDT rather than permitting their people to be killed by diseases as powerful as a biological population control WMD.

It seems to me that many black and brown people, more than white people are being affected by these major diseases due to the warm nature of their native climates. I think this is outrageous. I do not understand why black and brown religious groups, perhaps the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Latino leaders in the US and elsewhere, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world do not join together to stop the killing of young children, who simply want to have fun. Children do not want to live under nets or in bubbles.

The fact is that most of those who die are black or brown children. These young people should be enabled to live long and productive lives. Nobody, including the EPA should be gunning for them. Somebody should step up and become a face to this huge problem.

A little investigation would tell them that because the killer mosquito a.k.a. the mosquito borne parasite cannot be killed by ordinary means, something extraordinary is necessary. Lots of washing and looking good in the mirror does not help.

Tell me it is not possible that what I would call mostly comfortable Americans, in the Hamptons, (who work for the EPA?) or perhaps EPA people who live in other comfortable places, while making a good buck for the EPA, have determined that poor people, especially those in other countries are expendable?

The EPA prescribed and promoted DDT bans, which created needless suffering and death. Was population control an expressed or implied goal of the EPA? The population control aficionados know that mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well, and thus more and more deaths can occur in poor countries and their populations can thus be controlled!

Amen, Dr. Williams!

I admit that the topic of population control is way beyond my pay grade. I am, however, very sympathetic to those needlessly killed when solutions are available.

Greg Baxter wrote what I see as a chilling article on population control and malaria for The Irish Medical Times. It is titled, Is malaria the solution to population control.  I do not endorse or not endorse any of what is in his article but it surely demonstrates the point I am making and it brings in the serious notion that population control is not a topic to be taken lightly regardless of your position on population control or the means of control.

You can see this line of thought at http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/04/is-malaria-the-solution-to-population-control.html

Those arguing for population control take the issue as seriously and perhaps even more seriously than I take the issue of interference by the EPA from keeping the world disease free.

This is one of those chilling excerpts from Baxter’s article:

“Neither famine nor disease control population growth anymore. Nor does war. Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University, Robert Wyman looked at nuclear war as a way to control population growth in a public lecture last year.

“ ‘The Hiroshima bomb killed 75,000 people, the Nagasaki bomb killed 25,000 people. That’s 100,000 people dead in two quick flashes,” he said. “But the population on earth grows by approximately 200,000 a day. What that means is that if we can imagine that some wars are going to balance births and deaths on earth, that means that every day you have to blow up two Nagasaki bombs and two Hiroshima bombs, killing that equivalent number of people, just to keep even.’ ”

“Prof Wyman argues that the eradication of malaria, as well as the development of family planning and economic stability, will decrease population growth in Africa – putting the emphasis on fertility, instead of mortality, as a solution. He points out that the demographic transition from high fertility and mortality to low, already completed in places like Europe, Tunisia and Japan, is still ongoing in much of Africa.”

There are two sides to every story. In my story, the EPA does not have the right to play God. Its value as a force in the pollution debate is diminished by its apparent leanings towards world population control. Nobody in my government, of which I am aware, gave the EPA such power.

Chapter Summary

Going back in summary, we have learned from the EPA proponents that the DDT and the CFC bans are two of the EPA’s actions that have supposedly made it a great agency. Obviously “decreases in the death rate” is not an EPA statistic that is measured or cared about or this legacy would have a big cross-out mark on it.

I am not suggesting that DDT and CFCs are the EPA’s only sins but the DDT story shows the EPA has been a non repenting killer of people. The economic impact of the major regulations against fossil fuels and other necessities of life demonstrate that the EPA is also a jobs killer. The CFC story, in which you can engage in detail in the next chapter, is pure corruption, and a marriage of government and industry that should warrant a quick divorce.

So, I had concluded even before I had given you any facts in this book that the EPA itself needs to be killed. It should not be credited with great acts for the well-being of mankind as zealots and apologists might slant the facts.  The EPA is a killer of men—with no apologies.

The EPA at best is a pack of liars interested in their own power and self preservation. They have no concern about a sane person’s perception of the greater good, especially for we the people!  The EPA is pro-nature, and thus, they are anti-people as they have concluded that nature—animals, vegetables, and minerals are more important than people.

Even though they do not use guns or knives, the EPA murders people, nonetheless. Sometimes they murder with WMDs (malaria, yellow fever, etc.) simply to suit their sordid agenda. Sometimes it is by denying the spirit of a farmer who can no longer work the land.

This agency cannot be trusted with our lives.

Tell the EPA it’s time to go!
 

Chapter 4

Obama Snake Oil

 

EPA delivers large doses of snake oil

EPA regulations are often silly but they are always hurtful. Most regular human beings, who have not overdosed on Obama Snake Oil (OSO), see the sins of the EPA for what they are. OSO is a substancewhich the EPA should ban one day as a mind pollutant. Who knows what the next banned substance will be? Will it be two-ply toilet paper, outdoor dining, fireworks displays, or perhaps human flatulence? I should not give the EPA any ideas; they are already silly enough. Their latest target is antibacterial hand soaps. Maybe they make hands too clean.

EPA ignores dihydrogen oxide threat

On August 9, 2011, Patrick Hedger put forth a hypothesis on a dangerous substance that he said should be regulated by the EPA because it can be harmful and it can be toxic if breathed in small quantities or ingested in large doses.

The problem, according to Hedger is not being addressed. It is the chemical, Dihydrogen Oxide, which is also referred to as Hydric Acid.

Hedger laments that the substance is everywhere. He asks whether such an insidious chemical should not have more priority than others for the EPA due to its broader availability in the environment. Hedger writes:

“Dihydrogen Oxide is everywhere and it is killing people through over exposure and the adverse weather and other environmental conditions it creates.  The EPA has worked to create and implement regulations that have either banned or labeled hazardous far less lethal substances. So we must demand the EPA take action and regulate hydric acid right? After all the spread of Dihydrogen Oxide is so great that every single human being has close to a 70% contamination level. So where is the action? The dangers are proven. Why do we allow Hydric Acid to kill so many people and destroy so much? Simple:

“Dihydrogen oxide’s chemical formula is H2O. Hydric acid is water.

“So clearly it would be silly for the EPA to take action against water. Sure it can kill you, but you can’t live without it. If we safely use and recycle water, we can prevent most of the dangers it poses. Sure we can’t stop the thunderstorms and floods can be a bear to prevent, but just about everyone knows how to avoid drowning or that sticking your hand in boiling water is a bad idea. So if we can safely use a chemical or substance, despite its inherent dangers, it would be silly to impose government regulations on it. Right?”

The honeybee scare

You may have heard of the decline in the honeybee population in this country and across the world. What you may not have heard is that honeybees are not indigenous to America and probably came over with the pilgrims on the Mayflower. The phenomenon is true and it has been diagnosed but the cause is not known with specificity. The name of the problem is colony collapse disorder, or CCD, and it typically manifests itself with an abandoned hive with just the queen bee as the only occupant, apparently unable to reproduce.

Hannah Nordhaus has a great new book on the topic called "The Beekeeper's Lament," which is now available in popular bookstores. She offers a great perspective on why bees may be dying and it is not necessarily that clothianidin pesticide by Bayer, one of a number in the neonicotinoid (systemic) family is killing them.

This reasonably new pesticide now does the work that DDT once did. It is taking the blame by some environmentalists.  Can it be that since it replaced DDT it must be bad? Nordhaus notes the pathetic rush to judgment on the subject as she observed just how quickly environmentalists want to blame somebody or something for any problem in nature, often without having any facts.

This is the story of the EPA that we tell in this book. In fact, I predict that neonicotinoids will be found to be partly culpable in the reduction in honeybees and quite frankly the reduction in an insect population once robust enough to support animal predators such as tons of birds of all kinds. Now even the bird population is dwindling and the ornithologists are looking at the lack of insects as that problem. DDT is hardly in use at all in the world, so it is not this one time environmental fall guy that is causing the problem. The EPA would say that it is not nice to fool Mother Nature, and right now it is looking for a culprit to blame, right or wrong.

The three dirty letters DDT however, are not coming up. You see it is well known that DDT is a type of pesticide that is not harmful to bees, whereas neonicotinoids appear to be harmful to just about everything that is alive. Sometimes the cure is worse than the problem.

Ironically it may be the bad politics of possibly having to back off their DDT ban that has the EPA in a quandary currently. It appears the DDT replacement is a far more lethal substance than DDT. Can the EPA face that as a possibility?  Anyway, I thought you would like a summary of Nordhaus’s take on all those quickly trying to solve the problem—with or without facts. It is a great theme and it describes the EPA to a tee.

“Dying bees have become symbols of environmental sin, of faceless corporations out to ransack nature. Such is the story environmental journalism tells all too often. But it's not always the story that best helps us understand how we live in this world of nearly seven billion hungry people, or how we might square our ecological concerns and commitments with that reality. By engaging in simplistic and sometimes misleading environmental narratives -- by exaggerating the stakes and brushing over the inconvenient facts that stand in the way of foregone conclusions­­ -- we do our field, and our subjects, a disservice. “

Amen!

Keep nature happy

Many of the EPA regulations are not only silly but they are very hurtful to people and to business and a good part of those that are hurtful are stupid also. You can tell that Hannah Nordhaus feels similarly to me about environmentalists as she eloquently puts the scenario in perspective in the quote above. It helps for all of us to remember that the EPA, as the enforcer for the environment movement, has just one goal—to make sure nature is happy. If you can actually come to accept that major premise, then everything the EPA does makes perfect sense.

There are no constraints for Obama’s EPA. Nature comes first. If life gets a little bit or even a lot uncomfortable for humans because of the EPA and Mother Nature is happy—so be it. C’est la vie.

A few stupid EPA regulations to ponder

Let’s talk about a few really bad EPA regulations that have become well known over the agency’s 40-year life. There are far too many to get more than a sampling as there are hundreds of regulations that most normal people would call stupid. Most are still on the books.

Early regulations once pinpointed real problems and addressed them point on. Today’s regulations are reflections of somebody’s ideological agenda and they are structured such that attempts to kill, say one amoeba, would be done with a bunker buster bomb. But somebody in the EPA would object to the killing anyway. More than likely EPA personnel would be lining up on the side of the one celled parasite rather than working to help humans get rid of such threats to human health.

The new EPA regulations appear designed specifically to inhibit job creation and growth by private industry at a time we are in economic chaos? Our parents would not believe we would let this happen. Let’s take a look at a few of the most egregious!

The EPA loves life on the farm. Unfortunately, the EPA is too busy punishing farmers for tilling the soil and taking out precious minerals. The EPA also has a lot of time to crack down on farmers for their fine work in feeding mankind. Consequently, the EPA gives farmers little credit for fighting insects and fungi and all kinds of pests and diseases to bring a crop to market that they can sell and we can use at our tables.

If we had full access to their wish lists, we would find that there are more than a few insects or fungi that the EPA would like to put on the endangered species list. Perhaps that is a big reason for their angst and their dissatisfaction with American farmers.

The EPA sees things differently from those of us who go to market and enjoy the fruits of the farmers’ labor. It has whacked farmers but good, with a lot of costly and expensive rules and regulations. If their intention is not for farmers to give up, pack it in, and let us all eat cake, it sure seems like it is.

CO2 Emissions

As an example of the pain caused upon farmers by the EPA, those in the industry know that American farmers consider Title V of the Clean Air Act as a major threat to their survival. This is a CO2 emissions standard which applies to small farms such as those with over 25 cows. You and I exhale CO2 and so do cows and pigs and other animals. To get a permit to operate under Title V, it cost farmers a mere $46,500 and the pre-construction permit to get things in order costs $84,500. That is pretty menacing don’t you think? In fact, it is legalized extortion. Yet, that is how the EPA does business.

Dust Regulations

Then, of course the EPA has its so-called “Dust” regulation that the agency posted as not true in mid September right after Herman Cain, Godfather Pizza CEO, nailed them in a Republican Presidential debate. I bet after the debate the EPA’s thoughts quickly went to banning the harmful effects of Godfather Pizza. Unfortunately for the EPA, right now at least, Godfather Pizza is under the purview of the FDA.

The EPA now says dust is not one of their priorities. They admit they are considering / studying it. Farmers are always on notice because the EPA does not need Congress to OK its regulations. So, dust is definitely on the EPA agenda.  In fact, no matter what lies they tell, the EPA is looking to crack down on farm dust. Its proposal is already well formed and it involves treating farm dust as an air pollutant. Any dust from farm equipment, dusty farm roads, or those nasty farm animals kicking up dust would therefore be regulated by the EPA, when the rules are fully formulated and in place. Don’t laugh, it is true. Can you see why more and more long-time business owners are saying, “enough,” and simply retiring. Thank our friends at the EPA for that.

Manure Regulations

The EPA gets its kicks from getting into other people’s dung.  For example, they are into farm manure big time. They force the farmers to measure excrement as if they are trying to determine if the farm is large enough to warrant the big licensing expense as noted above. If a ton of excrement per month is the count, it may mean that the farm has 26 head of cattle and not the 24 as reported to the EPA. In this case, perhaps the farm needs to upgrade to the more expensive licenses.  

Not only is it a burden measuring and providing exact counts for things that we would call crap, farmers also must complete a ton of oppressive paperwork on EPA forms to properly account for the manure.

Unfortunately, God has not yet invented an animal that can go a lifetime without any excretory action. To satisfy the mounds of paper required by the EPA, there are documented cases in which farmers have spent upwards of 15 hours a week just filling out the forms so the EPA can track each load of manure that her animals generated. Maybe next year, they can add an excrement fee or perhaps ban excrement made (dropped) anywhere close to a rural area.

 

Figure 4-1 Manure Happens

Figure does not reproduce in copy

 

Power Plant Regulations

In addition to farmers, The EPA hates utility companies and they inflict big pain on this industry, which then is forced to raise utility rates. In addition to harming today’s economy, the actions taken by the EPA reduce the competitiveness of US industry and negatively impact our national security.

 

Figure 4-2 Nasty Power Plant

Figure does not reproduce in copy 

 

More and more utilities including American Electric Power, Duke Energy, and Southern Company have announced they are not going to take it anymore and they are preparing to close a number of coal-fired power plants. The cost of EPA regulations for them and many others is just too high. When the plants close, there will be layoffs, higher electricity prices and the possibility of power outages. It does help to remember that it is not the EPA’s responsibility to assure that humans are comfortable.

EPA is anti-energy

The EPA can and does hurt businesses in many ways and at the same time. They are truly ambidextrous. While blocking coal as a fuel source for electric power plants, the EPA is also blocking an easy means for the same plants to use natural gas or petroleum. It simply does not like fossil fuels and so its intent is for Americans to pay through the nose for power produced by oil, gas, or coal, The EPA does not really understand nuclear that well. It is regarded by scientists as a clean source of energy; nonetheless, the EPA is against it.

The Keystone XL pipeline saga

The EPA is active along with their environmentalist cronies and Hollywood celebrities with the intention of blocking the building of a new pipeline known as the Keystone XL pipeline. It would bring a huge amount of oil from Canada to Texas. It would be a good thing for America and it would assure that this valuable source of energy from Canda will not be diverted by the Canadians to Asia.

Every drop of oil counts when you are energy short as we are in America today. This Canadian Oil would supply start by providing 900,000 barrels of oil a day and provide billions of dollars of tax revenue. The EPA is against it and so is Obama but Obama must appear that he is undecided to please his union friends.

Since it is you and I who pay the 18,000 EPA employees their salaries, one would think they would work for us. Unfortunately, we do not get to evaluate their job performance regularly. However, we can elect new officials who can change their mission statement in a moment, and they can also eliminate the agency completely.

Our employment contract with the EPA says they get paid anyway, whether they help the people or hurt the people. Since during the building process, the pipeline may hurt nature a bit while in the future it would clearly be helping humans, the Obama’s EPA is not interested in the pipeline ever being built. Apparently, this is a direct order from Obama himself who recently placed the deal on hold. Obama has many rich and prominent political donors to his electoral warchest who raised environmental concerns. They are part of heavy activist environmental group, who threatened to withhold future campaign support if the project went ahead. It is no secret that Obama wants to get elected again far more than he wants to serve the people.

The EPA has identified Coal as its big target and it Is trying to get Power plants that use coal to shut down or convert to something more enviro-friendly. Yet, the EPA and Obama are blocking needed oil by not permitting the direct pipeline to Texas to be built. So, what does Obama’s EPA want us to do, bring land-based oil in from Canada on tankers?  Maybe they really want to create a heating and cooling crisis in the US? Can that be the plan?

President Obama is not very good at making any decision. We all know that not making a decision however is a decision. Obama gets away with it because the media is corrupt. He was a very ineffective Senator and he leads from behind so that he can second-guess all results. Obama is the same Obama who voted present innumerable times in the Senate and thus he had no real record when he ran for President.

Present, however was the only way Obama could vote when the unions were looking for 20,000 construction jobs and the environmentalists were pushing for magic, rather than the pipeline to deliver energy to homes in the US. A real leader would have OK’s the pipeline because it was the best thing for our country.

Obama never says never!  Thus every issue, upon which he has ever had to decide, remains open today. In this latest non-decision, the President delayed and perhaps killed the planned $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project until after the next election. Obama does not care about America but he does care about holding title to the office of President of the United States.

The President knew that about 20,000 union jobs were likely to go elsewhere but his major mandate to the EPA has been to keep the US in a bankrupt energy position until the economy completely collapses. The more Americans he can fool, the closer his wish for a permanently weak America is to coming true.

The President’s decision to table the pipeline rather than go hog wild to make it happen hit a lot of dependent people right between the eyes. Which project developer or supporter can take a year off waiting to see if the temperamental Obama will ever say “yes.” The Keystone XL organization has already pumped $1.7 billion in steel pipe as well as millions of dollars to obtain right-of-way easements to assure a proper construction path.

The project has been under study for three years and the environmentalists have assured that there were the requisite volumes and volumes of impact statements produced to properly characterize the work effort. It should have been a go but emotion and the win at all costs mantra of environmentalists often trumps the facts.

Since the pipeline crosses US borders, the State Department had previously determined that it would have “no significant impacts” from their perspective as they had controlling jurisdiction. They were prepared to offer their formal approval by the end of 2011. Unfortunately, this self-imposed timetable provoked environmental activists to push hard for the administration to reject it. The White House, under control of BHO rejected it. The EPA and Obama campaign supporters had a party. America wept for itself.

It is really tough for those who expect the best from this administration. Disappointment has been the lesson to all of us who hoped for a good change. All of the agencies—EPA, FDA, USDA, DOE, etc.—are in lock-step with Obama regardless of how off the mark the President’s demands take them.

So, we all must stay well awake as this President will not give up until he is clearly defeated and his surrogates, such as the EPA will not give up until there is no hope. Their life’s missions appear to be aligned so closely with the President’s that they move like twins in simpatico.

None of the President’s agencies, especially the EPA seem to really care about America or Americans. The sooner Americans realize that we are on our own, the sooner we all will be able to fend off the incessant volleys and move in only one direction – the direction that helps America the most. It is always the direction opposite that to which the president is heading.

It is really inconceivable that a president who blames everybody else for job losses can turn his back on 20,000 jobs plus the opportunity for a few percentages towards energy independence. What motivates such a president to turn away from things that help America if it is not that he wishes the worst for America?

BP Oil Spill—not Obama’s finest moment

It is not the first time for Obama to vote against American energy. The US Interior Department got a piece of the action in the Gulf in 2010 after the BP spill. Wherever the government was involved, things stalled. Additionally, thanks to the government, the people in the gulf suffered more than even the Katrina disaster. Who would have expected after the southern states were hit with such drastic job losses that the President’s men would increase, not decrease the time period in which they would be unemployed. Is this our Job’s President or is it just a little snake oil?

You may recall in 2010 that U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If you were working someplace else in the US, you may not have noticed. This action by Salazar from Interior, and Obama the ideologue erased access to 7.5 billion barrels of oil and nearly 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas along with tens of thousands of job opportunities they would have created.

Just like the pipeline crews are not holding in place since these men need to work, those Gulf drilling rigs and jobs went overseas. They did not sit around hoping Obama and Salazar would start playing nicey nicey with them. They left the gulf for greener pastures.

By the time the courts told Obama he did not have the authority, the damage had already been done. And, to show the judge who the President was and that judges are just puny little things compared to presidents, Obama changed a few things in the Salazar regulations and then ignored the court order to drop the moratorium. Yet, nobody, D or R really challenges this powerful prince as he destroys America piece by piece with his agency power.

In this big 2010 BP Gulf Oil spill, it appeared that the EPA was hurting rather than helping in the cleanup. Why was that? It was because they actually were hurting the cleanup and not offering any real help. They operate under Obama’s direct orders.

They were a constraint to all those trying to help the people of the Gulf to get rid of that nasty oil.  But, then again their job is not to help man. The EPA job is to help nature and most of the time man is guilty and nature gets hurt simply because there are too many people.

Some may recall during the Gulf disaster that the Dutch had offered four huge skimmers that would suck up tons of the toxic water and oil.  The oil would sink into the tanker’s tank, and the water would be pumped off back into the Gulf. This was not acceptable to Obama’s EPA.

The EPA had a regulation that water that contained oil could not be pumped back into the ocean. Rather than waive it, they stubbornly stuck by that regulation because after all, they had written it.  So for 50 days nothing was permitted in the Gulf while the oil was racing in.  After 50 days, the EPA relented and of course there was no problem from the Dutch skimmers once they went into operation, but by then the big damage was already done. The EPA expressed no remorse.

Dinesh D’Souza is one of America's most influential conservative thinkers. He wrote a book titled, “The Roots Of AObama’s Rage in which he explains the unexplainable about the conundrum in chief. He has choice words to say about Obama in the gulf:

“Next let’s consider Obama’s response to the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As torrents of black oil gushed toward southern shores, Obama sounded lethargic, almost bored, with what was going on and what needed to be done to stop it. Even Democratic strategist James Carville expressed amazement at Obama’s personal and emotional remove from the situation. “I have no idea why they didn’t seize this thing. I have no idea why their attitude was so hands off here.” Listening to Obama talk on the subject, TV host Keith Olbermann​responded: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

“Finally, addressing the TV cameras on May 14, 2010, Obama managed to work up some enthusiasm. Time and again he condemned “British Petroleum​”—an interesting term since the company long ago changed its name to BP. Given our anti-colonial theory, it’s no surprise that Obama wanted to remind Americans of what BP used to stand for. He was equally outspoken in whacking the other oil companies for their “ridiculous spectacle” of “pointing fingers of blame.” Actually these companies were not responsible for the spill, and the only blame, in addition to that of BP, belonged to the Obama administration for its Katrina-like incompetence in responding to the disaster.

“Addressing the nation on the spill on June 15, 2010, Obama stressed that Americans “consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s resources.” Obama went on to say that “for decades we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” Unfortunately, “time and again the path forward has been blocked” by, among others, “oil industry lobbyists.” Now, on the face of it, this is a perfectly reasonable statement from a liberal politician who thinks this is what the American public wants to hear. But ask yourself, what does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the oil spill have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10 percent of the world’s resources? Of course not. The point is that for Obama the energy and environmental issues reduce to a simple proposition: America is a neocolonial giant eating up more than its share of the world’s resources, and in doing so America is exploiting the scarce fuel of the globe; consequently, this gluttonous consumption must be stopped. This is the heart of Obama’s energy and environmental agenda: not cleaning up the Gulf or saving the environment in general, but redressing the inequitable system where the neocolonial West—and neocolonial companies like BP—dominates the use of global energy resources.”

Brazil can drill

Ironically, after the US had invested over $2 billion with Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance offshore exploration in their home oil field in the Santos, which was close to Rio de Janeiro, Obama came out of Gulf hiding and pledged that America would become one of their best customers. I wonder if Brazil offered a Plexiglas flexible pipeline between our two countries, whether Obama would have given the OK. Can it be that Obama only says “no” if America has a chance to gain?

No pipeline, period

Considering the Keystone XL pipeline was an inland connection between Canada and the US, it is hard to understand that on March 19, 2010, President Obama explained his decision to give Brazil a head start against America in this way:

“At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.” Dear President Obama: What about Canada and Montana?

Obama’s delay on the pipeline may force developers to kill the pipeline project altogether. Why an oil customer that depended on the pipeline would be reassured by a president who cannot make a decision favorable to America, would want to invest in America is anybody’s guess. Customers who have already signed up to take delivery of oil will surely lose money, and there will be added expenses to get new permits.

All Americans are set back by Obama’s pipeline decision. No matter what we can do for ourselves, Obama, the environment prince, will veto it, and the EPA will enforce his veto.

Why does putting off the real decision til after the election make any sense for America. We must face it with no false hope. Obama has made the decision. He just did not announce it as the decision. There will be no Canadian / US pipeline.

According to TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, who knows more about the situation than even the know-it-all Obama, says that if crude delivery can’t begin as scheduled, “Those shippers will only wait so long, and then they will start looking for other markets. Similarly, the refiners can only wait so long for Canadian crude oil to come into their marketplace.” A key prospective market is Asia. Will this be known as the big Obama jobs loser of November 2011? I think so!

Obama is the reason we are not doing well. Look no further than the White House for why there is no economic or jobs recovery. Recovery would get in the way of the President’s ideological agenda. If any other president were in control of the EPA, for example, nobody would expect that president to advocate courses of actions that would hurt America. With Obama, it is not the case. We expect the worst from him and we get it.

Kill the EPA in self defense

It is not silly but it is true that the government through the EPA plans to gain control over as much of American industry as possible. Their intent is to kill off American industry and American energy. I say kill the EPA monster first.

Newt Gingrich repeatedly has suggested the replacement of the EPA with a new agency called the ”Environmental Solutions Agency.” I fear that would be a political trick and the same bums would simply be in new offices. Let’s start by ridding ourselves of this scourge. Kill the agency and let the EPA employees get jobs on farms or oil rigs—or collect unemployment.

I can’t think of a better way to end this Chapter on Obama Snake Oil than by quoting Thomas Sowell, who on June 15, 2010, writing for the National Review Online titled his piece as: “Obama’s Snake-Oil Spill” I think Sowell has Obama pegged pretty well. Here it is:

“Nothing will keep a man or an institution determined to continue on a failing policy course like past success with that policy. Obama’s political success in the 2008 election campaign was a spectacular triumph of creating images and impressions.

“But creating political impressions and images is not the same thing as governing. Yet Obama in the White House keeps on saying and doing things to impress people, instead of governing.” 

Chapter 15

The Best Solution to the Freon Non-Problem

 

Oregon Observer and Gary Lindgren

These facts are a continuation of the Oregon Observer story.

In 1992, Gary Lindgren, just a regular smart guy, a former aerospace engineer, got wind of the opportunity to create a solution to satisfy the fraudulent need for a Freon replacement. So, he began experimenting to see if he could come up with something while working in his home town of Post Falls, Idaho. He was toying with some old refrigerators, which he had lying around—so he had a nice sandbox in which to play.

Like many inventors before him, Lindgren hit the jackpot with a combination of chemicals that emitted no Ozone depletion factors, and was well within all of the numbers as specified by the EPA. Moreover, since his formula worked in all the old refrigerators, no major refrigeration unit would have to be replaced when his concoction replaced Freon. R-12 (Freon) could simply be taken out and Lindgren’s OZ-12 (a.k.a. HC-12a) put back in as a replacement, according to the Lindgren studies. Refrigeration experts across the Internet have certified this as fact.

Lindgren had in fact discovered the alternative answer to what was then the looming refrigeration dilemma—an inexpensive, harmless, non corrosive alternative to Freon. When the EPA moves out of the way, Lindgren’s brew may be found to be the safest for all commercial applications. But, we won’t know until we move the EPA and Obama out of the decision process.

Though Freon still remains scientifically OK, and it has never been proven to be an Ozone depleter, the fact is that the EPA, using what scientists consider bogus science, banned it and unless Congress eliminates the EPA, that ban will hold. Therefore Freon can no longer be used commercially.

To lighten that statement a bit; this made Freon’s use problematic at best. Lindgren’s solution is actually as efficient as Freon, and it is far better than the witch’s brew DuPont cooked up as its solution. Do you think that the malcontents at the EPA really liked the DuPont brew? Is it possible that there was something else in play?

Knowing this was an important discovery; Lindgren founded OZ Technology to market his discovery. HC-12a became his answer to the international chlorofluorocarbon (CFC, Freon) ban as per the Montreal Protocol of 1987, of which the US was a signatory. The intention of the treaty was of course to limit global warming and ozone depletion. Both of these notions are hocus pocus and in great disrepute as I write this book.

However, the EPA is indefatigable in its insistence that Freon and DDT must not ever be used again. It is carved in the precepts of their religion. When the EPA is gone, my recommendation would be to simply bring back Freon, unless we find Lindgren’s solution, when the light of day analysis is permitted, to be even better than Freon.

Lindgren had actually solved a “non-problem” with a wonderful and acceptable solution. This expose shows how the EPA could not accept a non-DuPont solution even though it is still recognized as the best solution of all by other opinionists in the world refrigeration marketplace. 

Because the statement is true, we do like to say that there is substantial speculation that Freon was and is not really an air-quality or atmospheric problem, but it served as a straw man—a declared problem to give the EPA a cause to act. Any solution that did not come directly from DuPont to replace Freon apparently was DOA at the EPA. Was it trust or was it corruption?

The EPA loved DuPont for its own reasons. The thinking is that the EPA and DuPont had been good bedfellows and the EPA did not like Lindgren’s HC-12a because DuPont could not make as much money on it. I am not suggesting the EPA got kickbacks but there is speculation something other than the facts had to create such a love affair.

Even the EPA does not take issue with the fact that HC-12a can immediately replace Freon (R-12) without any changes to the refrigeration / AC system. However, since HC-12a is a hydrocarbon blend, it is by definition, flammable. This is the claimed EPA big issue. Yet scientists and engineers, and even technicians know that all refrigerants in operation are flammable—even Freon. By itself, Freon is non-flammable but it becomes flammable when used.

How flammable is HC-12a? It is in the family of butane and propane and so, by itself, just like the component butane and propane gases, which are used for cooking and for lighters, HC-12a is highly flammable.  Before we move from this thought, however, think of all the things in a car that are flammable, including gasoline and motor oil.

Some readers may like to get an immersion education about hydrocarbons. Butane and propane and Lindgren’s HC-12a are hydrocarbons, as is OZ-12, the OZ version of HC-12a. For your edification, I found this site to be the most helpful in providing me with a basic knowledge about what the hydrocarbon debates against the EPA are all about. Feel free to take a trip when you can:

Learn more about hydrocarbons at http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/faq.php

For your information, I have reproduced the hydrocarbon list from this hydrocarbons21 site for your convenience:

The following hydrocarbons can be used as a refrigerant in cooling & heating applications:

 

  • R170 - ETHANE - C2H6
  • R290 - PROPANE (Dimethylmethane) - C3H8
  • R600 - BUTANE (N-Butane, Butane) - C4H10
  • R600a - ISOBUTANE (2-Methylpropane) - C4H10
  • R1270 - PROPYLENE (Propene) - C3H6
  • R1150 - ETHYLENE - C2H4

However, the most commonly used HC refrigerants are propane (mainly in commercial and industrial freezers, air conditioning and heat pumps), and isobutane (in domestic refrigerators and freezers).

Gary Lindgren’s HC-12a is a mixture of hydrocarbons. Gary, who once was an aerospace engineer, used propane (R-290) and isobutane (R-600a) to create his effective concoction. So, for the EPA, the good news was that this is considered nearly non-ozone-depleting when compared to dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12, Freon-12), the banned substance.

The part the EPA did not like was it was actually more environmentally friendly than the newly adopted compound approved by the EPA known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) created by DuPont. Despite its great qualities, the EPA remained unimpressed with Lindgren’s solution. My perspective is that the EPA should have looked to either Lindgren’s solution or a derivative so the world would not now have to deal with the residual effects of R-134a, which are not very pleasant.

HC-12a can directly be used in refrigeration systems designed for R-12. Moreover, it provides substantially better cooling than an R-12 system retrofitted to the approved DuPont R-134a, with much greater energy efficiency as well.

Since 1996, HC-12a has been sold in Canada as Duracool but the EPA ban on HC-12a goes all the way to Canada. It cannot be used in automobiles even in Canada though it is a drop in with no work involved. HC-12a can be used in commercial units but cannot be used in mobile air conditioners due to the EPA blockage. Why is the EPA so much against the non-DuPont solution? Can it be its non-DuPont-ness?

Energy efficiency has always been very important to the EPA. As of January, 2012, the EPA has begun its process to eliminate incandescent light bulbs—not because the bulbs have any problem but because the power plants have to work too hard to light them. See Chapter 8. So, why choose a refrigerant that causes a car engine to have to work harder to cool a car?

Can it be that the playing field is not fair? Though the official word is that HC-12a performs better than R134a (the DuPont blend), unofficially, refrigeration experts will tell you that HC-12a is actually more efficient than Freon (R-12).

Unlike R-134a, the DuPont solution to R-12 (Freon), HC-12a is completely compatible with the hoses and oils used in R-12 systems, making the conversion much easier to accomplish if it were only permitted by the EPA. Though Lindgren did hold a patent for the specific mix, HC-12a was still considered to be patent-free due to its non-synthetic nature. That made it even more desirable as a replacement for Freon. Somehow, the EPA did not buy any of those arguments. Then again, the EPA is the EPA.

The documentation indicates that the flammability characteristics caused the EPA to declare HC-12a illegal to replace R-12 units in vehicles in the United States. It is not illegal to buy HC-12a in the US, but EPA approval is necessary today for corporations to adopt anything. So, nobody is trying to override the EPA even though they should.

The consolation prize for Lindgren is that his HC-12a product may be used legally in refrigeration systems that were not originally charged with R-12. However, using EPA guidelines, there are certain states that prohibit the use of flammable refrigerants in automobiles.

If we were not sure the EPA was pure, we should now think the EPA is not pure.

Those in the refrigeration business think that if Gary Lindgren, who unfortunately died in a fire in his trailer in 2009, was Mr. E. I. DuPont, or even Mr. Gary DuPont, speculators would think that all the stops would have been removed so that DuPont could market HC-12a free and clear. Lindgren, may he rest in peace, was harassed by the EPA until the day he died.

HFC R-134a

In my career as a Senior Systems Engineer with IBM, I was called upon often to evaluate one system against another over multiple criteria to ultimately determine and present which one was the best for a given situation. Fox Tools Supply Company sells HC-12a in America and they hope to wait it out until this phenomenal replacement for R-12 is in widespread use.

The company built a matrix very much like the ones I used for comparing computer systems so that it is easy to see the various characteristics and how HC-12a compares with the DuPont recommended solution HFC R-134a. Please notice in the chart that both are non ozone depleting. That is the only positive characteristic of the DuPont solution, though I do not claim to be a refrigerant expert.

The only real problem with R-12 that the EPA cared about was that they said it was ozone depleting (Real scientists do not agree with their premise.). If the EPA wanted non ozone depleting, that is what they got with the DuPont solution but it comes with a lot of other nasty baggage issues. If I were you, I would not want to ever touch HFC R-134a. The non-ozone depleting HFC R-134a is hazardous to the health of human beings and animals. But, why would the EPA care about that. Perhaps it is a tool that can be used to aid in population control?  I copied the Fox Tools chart from their site for our full review:

http://www.foxtoolsupply.com/hc12vs.htm

 

 

The chart on the next page shows the major differences between the HC refrigerant product and HFC R-134a

 

Notice the last item in the chart. It is not in the original document. I added it because from all the literature out there it is true. It tells you in no uncertain terms that all refrigerants are flammable when in use. The EPA ruled out HC-12a because it is flammable. Yet in system, all refrigerants are flammable so why is the whole story not being told to the public?

R-134a (and other refrigerants) is just as flammable as HC-12a when mixed with refrigerant oil, yet the quantity of refrigerant and oil in a typical system is so low that the danger of a fire issue in any case (including HC-12a) is minimal.

One would have to believe the EPA was asleep when they approved R-134a or they thought nobody would catch them. When R-134a is exposed to flame, it releases one of the worst gasses of all time. Perhaps you already know of the toxic phosgene gas. Contrast this with HC-12a, which is completely non-toxic.

In the interest of full disclosure, do you find it strange that the EPA does not discuss the phosgene gas as a problem in case of an auto accident? After all, this colorless gas gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World War I. It is more lethal than mustard gas.

I would like to see burn tests on R-134a. In most refrigerant information sites they offer the same response as the wiki.answers site I reference below:

 

HC Refrigerant Products such as HC-12a

HFC R-134a

Non Global Warming (GWP negligible)

Global Warming (GWP of 3200 for r134a on Greenpeace calculations and publications. In other words it is a light greenhouse gas.

Non Ozone Depleting

Non Ozone Depleting

Non Toxic

- Animal Testing has indicated that with repeated exposure Benign testicular may develop

-Postmortem will indicate increased organ weight

-r134a Human Testing has indicated that with repeated and/or high concentration single exposure humans may experience any of the following:

 

Reduced oxygen intake

 

Temporary alteration of heart's electrical activity

 

Irregular pulse / palpitations

 

Inadequate circulation

 

Heart irregularities

 

Tremors and other Central Nervous System symptoms

 

Unconsciousness or death

 

Thermal decomposition (exposure to open flame, glowing metal surfaces) forms

"Hazardous" hydrofluoric acid and possible carbonyl fluoride (both of which can cause severe  Central Nervous System reactions.)

Compatible with both mineral and synthetic oils including PAG and Ester oils

r134a not compatible with mineral oils.  Need ester and PAG only.  Ester oils are very hydroscopic.  PAG oils are subject to toxic registration in certain states/regions. . 

Non Corrosive

r134a Highly Corrosive

Pressure "high side" of MVACS approx. 150 psig

Pressure "high side" of MVACS approx. 300 psig

Energy efficient compared to R-12

r134a not energy efficient compared to R-12

Flammable – non toxic emissions when burning

R-134a (and other refrigerants) appear to be just as flammable as HC-12a when mixed with refrigerant oil, yet the quantity of refrigerant and oil in a typical system is so low that the danger in any case is minimal. Additionally, when R-134a and R-12  is exposed to flame, it releases toxic phosgene gas, whereas HC-12a is completely non-toxic

 

“R134a, when exposed to a flame, such as from a candle, a cigarette or a gas range, decomposes into phosgene gas, which can be deadly if inhaled in sufficient amounts.”

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_to_add_freon_to_a_leaking_air_conditioner#ixzz1agbEYgCw

It is strange that the EPA bans HC-12a but permits R-134a. Gasoline is flammable. Motor oil is flammable, and R-134a in system is also flammable. But, the EPA is right. You are likely not to die of burns in an R-134a equipped vehicle perhaps because the WMD gas released during burning will get you ( phosgene is a deadly WMD gas) before the flames burn any part of your body.

The EPA does not suggest that and it is possible that the amount of phosgene in a potential accident may be minimal or something not to be concerned about but that is a risk not too many would want to take. Why does the EPA not fully explain phosgene gas? Would you rather be burned or would you rather inhale something that did not kill you until a few weeks after it was inhaled?

In the first combined chlorine/phosgene attack by Germany in WWI, against British troops at Wieltje near Ypres, Belgium on December 19, 1915, 88 tons of the gas was released from cylinders causing 1069 casualties and 69 deaths. Nobody ever died from HC-12a gas, so you tell me which is more dangerous to humans. Clearly the EPA believes that Freon Gas (R-12) and is more deadly to Mother Nature; but what about humans?

If you would like to learn a bit more about air conditioning in very, very, easy to understand terms, feel free to go to http://www.misterfixit.com/aircond.htm. You may not be interested. I too was not interested originally but I am glad I took the trek. If you want to learn more about lethal gases used in wars, we have no additional references.  However, as you, we are shocked about the notion of phosgene gas close by humans after a decomposition of an AC refrigerant.

Let me go over this flammability issue one more time and you tell me whether the EPA ought to approve HC-12a since the flammability issue is not as clear-cut as the EPA would like us all to believe.

As discussed, all refrigerants are blended with oil in the actual system, and all refrigerants are violently flammable under catastrophic system breach conditions (refrigerant rushes out, creating aerosol mist of oil—a big flame-ball erupts whether it's R-12, R-134a, OZ-12, or whatever). So, should fire be an issue with HC-12A? It does not seem so.

Is the reason that HC-12a is not approved because it is not very expensive and anybody—not just DuPont can make it?  It is a fact that the hydrocarbon blends (HC-12a, etc) are very cheap (about $1.25 for enough to charge a few systems), But they aren't approved by the EPA for use in automotive A/C systems.

I am so suspicious about getting my facts from the EPA that I searched many other sites for corroborating evidence before I came to any conclusions. Again, I am not a scientist but I do have a B.S. degree in IT. I was not conducting experiments either. I was assessing analysis done by experts.  I would love somebody to do an expose on why HC-12a is really being held up.

Apparently trying to avoid a defamation suit, the Oregon Observer in its expose, danced around the issue as it noted that “There is evidence to suggest that the CFC ban is another enviro-hoax based on bad science so big business can open up a brand new marketplace enforced by an international treaty and rape the people of the world for $billions. The estimated ‘chiller change’ market in the U.S. alone is $40 billion.

“The actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a self-admitted policy to drive Lindgren and other small hydrocarbon refrigerant producers out of business, make the enviro-hoax evidence all the more compelling.”

HFC-134a as documented in the Oregon Observer and as we have shown in the chart has many undesirable properties, but the EPA knew it was an original product by DuPont. Among its undesirable “retro” characteristics it was found to be an unstable, expensive, corrosive, toxic, inorganic, greenhouse gas-producing product. Somehow, none of that mattered to the EPA or to DuPont.

To make HFC-134a, any other producer would require a chemical plant that cost at a minimum, $2 billion. That just about assured DuPont would get all the refrigerant business at the time. HFC-134a was the EPA strategy, and they made sure it worked from a business standpoint for DuPont.

When market entry ($2 Billion) is expensive or difficult, the dominant player gets what the business people call a “monopoly.” As a casual observer, my research shows that is exactly what DuPont needed to rescue itself from its malady—what were once its Freon profits.

Somehow, a man from OZ became a threat, but he would not have been able to come up with a $2 Billion bogey to beat DuPont in a rigged market. Then again, if DuPont held the patent any plant-building would be moot.

Clearly, patent restrictions as well as hostile market entry terms made it highly unlikely that any other company would ever be able to make the HFC-134a product. So, the EPA saw its job to prevent any other “nobody” solution from getting the light of day.

Working further on the list of retro characteristics, nobody in the mainstream media will report that 10 percent of the total 134a production volume always ends up as toxic waste. This nasty stuff needs its own disposal methodology. Besides what appears to be potential corruption in the approval process, I would suggest that the worst part of HFC-134a from a commercial perspective is that it requires those who switch from Freon to suffer through an expensive conversion or get a new air conditioner or refrigerator. The new box, of course can use any legal EPA approved refrigerant. Moreover, if your Freon unit, needs to simply be recharged, the EPA will not permit it. The system needs to be changed and 134a will be your new game. That is a very expensive proposition.

In other words, every refrigeration system in the world had to change so as to accommodate the corrosive nature of HFC-134a. The DuPont invention was really bad overall. DuPont perhaps knew it would be adopted by the EPA regardless of faults, and they may have thought they could come up with something better sooner, but there is no documentation supporting that line of thinking. In a nutshell, HFC-134a is a poor product, and America would be better without it.

When it needed to become the product released to market, and it needed t work for consumers, DuPont needed to augment it with some hellish chemicals including expensive, carcinogenic, synthetic compressor oils. The profit motive for some companies is a huge driver of product change. Without the bad stuff, whatever good HFC-134a promised could not be delivered.

HC-12a, a product of one man’s garage, needed none of this extra duty work; but, then again, it was not made by the EPA-friendly DuPont Company.

Most of the people in the refrigeration industry know that the CFC ban is a scam and thanks to the Oregon Observer, the late Gary Lindgren and others, now you know also.

Based on what we now know, why should we, the forgotten taxpayers of America, pay the salaries of 18,000 people in this un-American Agency that works against all of US. It costs US $10.5 billon per year, and each time they do anything, we lose!

Regardless of the opinions of ideologues and zealots, the EPA deserves nothing. Hopefully a quick end to its existence will come very soon.

Medical Evidence -- CFCs Help Asthmatics

The EPA CFC ban used a broad brush on CFCs. There are no exceptions. The EPA is all-knowing! No exceptions is the EPA hard-nosed style. Even if your product helps living people live better than any other product, the EPA says it must be removed as the EPA is unmoved by human needs. If the EPA thinks X; X it shall be!

Even if your company was using just a few ounces of a CFC for your product, it would still be banned. You would not be permitted to make the device. It did not matter to the EPA that products that used just a miniscule amount of CFCs were proven to be the best products in their marketplace and they could actually help people live better. For example, Doctors of asthmatics believe that CFC inhalers are unmatched in their ability to relieve the symptoms of mostly younger Americans.

In other words, in the marketplace, if the EPA were not a participant, the inhaler that helped children the most would have been the one doctors prescribed the most. Can you imagine if the EPA is the agency Obama selects to enforce the medical provisions of Obamacare?

Just like the EPA stopped the Gulf oil spill from being cleaned up in short order, they have stopped the use of the best inhaler for asthmatics while concurrently claiming their organization is the reason humans can breathe.

The ideological EPA knows what it is doing. CFC inhalers will be banned forever as long as the EPA can control Congress. Despite proof from the medical community that the EPA ban causes deaths and discomfort for young Americans, the EPA continues to be unmoved.

The bottom line for the EPA on the CFC ban on inhalers is that they are still banned and will continue to be banned as long as the EPA has any say. Children in this case are the ones who suffer while the EPA executes its agenda without scientific proof a ban is needed. The EPA says “No.” to any exception. Congress unfortunately remains powerless as the Obama team controls the Senate.

The EPA created a medical issue out of its major scheme or as some called it, a scam. The issue they wanted to assure was put out to the public was “CFCs hurt all people.” The medical community disagrees with the EPA, but this regulatory body overruled the doctors and nurses and instead won one for the environment at the expense of our children.

Doctors and medical practitioners are upset that the EPA has placed its agenda over what is good for Americans, especially those with bronchial issues—mostly young people.

Here are some unaltered comments from medical professionals about CFCs. Again, you must make your own decision:  Check out the site when you have time: http://www.savecfcinhalers.org/Doctors_Speak_Out.html

Here are the quotes introduced by the site above. 

"I occasionally have bronchospasm after I get a cold, and I personally can say that the HFA version of albuterol doesn't work. My patients say the same thing. How CFC inhalers were banned and more expensive, less effective medications substituted for dependent patients is beyond me. Dr. Howard Schulman, RI #4916

“Many say that they feel like the inhaler isn't delivering the medicine.”

Dr. Mario Castro, pulmonologist and associate professor of medicine for Washington University's School of Medicine, December 29, 2008

"During my twenty five years of practicing medicine, I have had occasion to treat hundreds of asthmatics, from mild cases to severe cases requiring hospitalization. I can report that during this time, I had many patients who responded better to the CFC inhalers than to the HFA inhalers. The relief response was faster and more pronounced, and these patients were much more satisfied with the CFC inhalers.”

"Fifteen years ago, I developed the sudden onset of adult asthma,which was frequently severe to the point of crisis, requiring oxygen as well as injections of epinephrine and steroids. I feel that the CFC inhalers provide faster and longer lasting relief from difficult breathing than the HFA inhalers.”

"The amount of CFC’s released into the atmosphere by the MDI's from asthmatics is trivial in comparison to the numerous other causes of contamination, andto withhold an effective therapy for one who feels suffocated and unable to breathe is callous and grossly misdirected. Many physicians feel that there is an emotional component to the causation of asthma.”

“Even if studies claim that the two types of inhalers are of equal effectiveness, to deny to an asthmatic in crisis the medication he or she feels is more effective is cruel and might well aggravate the asthmatic symptoms instead of providing the treatment (i.e. CFC’s) the asthmatic person feels is more effective.”

"CFC’s are not available because of the influence of medically untrained persons prevailing upon the legislature to ban them from the marketplace. It has been widely noticed that when a patented drug’s patent protection expires, and cheap generics become widely available, the manufacturer of said patent medication immediately produces a new patent-protected medication said to produce much better clinical results. Note that universally, the new medication is considerably more expensive than the former patented drug, and many times more expensive than the generic version.”

 

Summary

The EPA worships nature and abhors man. The more humans that live on earth, the more unhappy is the EPA. The more comfortable humans are made the more likely they will want to live longer lives.

Would the EPA care if children with bronchial issues died because of the CFC ban? That is already on the table. If they cared, for the amount of traceable pollution, the ban would be lifted in these circumstances.

At http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/hfa_inhalers.html, there are a number of complaints about inhalers and ironically there are also ads for inhalers. Here are some comments from the site.

“The ProAir brand inhaler does not reach the lungs and does not contain more than 20 doses when it is supposed to contain 200. I and 6 children all have had lifelong asthma and we cannot get relief resulting in many trips to the ER. Every doctor and pharmacy argues with me that they work just fine and they have had no other complaints.

“Type in ProAir on the Internet and complaints come up one after the other. Why is the FDA not correcting this when people are literally dying? And why are these doctors and pharmacists lying to us?

“All insurance companies will only cover the red ProAir canister and that is usually with a hefty co-pay. Then when they only last a few days, they will not let asthmatics get any more because they insist it was a 30 day supply!

“A few weeks ago there was a big deal made about a college girl who "died from overuse of her inhaler.” Her classmates stated that she had been puffing on it more than usual until she finally died. It was all over the news until the comments from those of us that use these inhalers were very negative stating that this poor girl died because she kept trying to puff on her medication, but it was not reaching her lungs and did not stop the attack that killed her. Those comments stopped any reporting of this case and the poor girl's death is just going to go down as her doing something wrong. These cases are too many to mention so they are just being disregarded. This needs to stop!”

Closing Note

In the war against humankind, in which the EPA may already be engaged, a desirable “end game” would be that 90% less people live on the planet after the war. Mother Nature would finally be appeased. If you buy that, do you think there is any collective weeping in the EPA for a soul that passes on because they could not breathe without help from a banned CFC? 

Chapter 3

Was Silent Spring Too Loud?

 

Are good solutions always bad?

There is no question that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring led to greater public awareness of pollution in the 1960s. Was there pollution? Absolutely there was pollution and there still is. Americans and other citizens of the world do need protection from dispassionate corporations who would unscrupulously create an environment in which carcinogens are produced in the industrial process, and there is no accountability. Can you be anti-EPA and anti-pollution and “trust but verify” on corporations all at the same time? Absolutely! The sins of the EPA are so egregious; however, it has outlived its usefulness.

The EPA as a response to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring has become the moral equivalent of killing a mouse with an A-bomb. Ironically, the EPA would fight for the mouse to be saved even if humans would die. The EPA is a plague worst than the worst delivered my a herd of mice and rats.

My position remains that we need to kill the EPA because it continues to work on the wrong problems. But, more so than that, the agency has little regard for humankind. They devise cures for prevaricated illnesses that are worse than the supposed diseases. The EPA is not a people-first agency. People do not even have a ranking in the EPA priority list. As nature first, people come last as the EPA is always concerned about what man is doing to nature and not whether man can survive in nature.  One thing for sure, man cannot depend on the EPA for help in surviving.

Corporate thugs, union thugs, EPA thugs, government thugs, and all political thugs, must be kept tame by the people. Yes, it is a tough task but more and more people are signing up. More and more Americans have simply had enough. Many people I meet every day want to scream out loud, “Get off our backs!”  How about you?

The truth about the lies of Silent Spring

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards notes in his powerful expose on Silent Spring, which he titles, “The Lies of Rachel Carson,” that despite environmentalists wanting so much for her words to be all true, Rachel Carson did not measure up. Her words were not true and in many ways they were intentionally deceitful. Rachel Carson is the patron saint of the EPA, and they take her lying license for granted in the major body of their work. If you are looking for nothing but the truth, do not read Silent Spring and do not visit the EPA web site. 

Dr. Edwards and many environmentalists in his camp were delighted that somebody had finally addressed the environment in a meaningful way. However, as he was moving through Carson’s book, his enthusiasm diminished. He began to clearly see the big holes in Carson’s story.

Dr. Edwards is an environmentalist. He is not a conservative as many of us who read this book may be. He has been published by the Sierra Club, The Indiana Waltonian, Audubon Magazine, and other environmental magazines. A well-known entomologist, Edwards is not a lightweight on environmental topics.

The following are direct quotes of Dr. J. Gordon Edwards from the cover story in: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

“…As I read the first several chapters I noticed many statements that I realized were false; however, one can overlook such things when they are produced by one’s cohorts, and I did just that.

“As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad.

“I then took notice of her bibliography and realized that it was filled with references from very unscientific sources. Also, each reference was cited separately each time it appeared in the book, thus producing an impressive array of “references” even though not many different sources were actually cited. I began to lose confidence in Rachel Carson, even though I thought that as an environmentalist I really should continue to support her

“I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. When leading scientists began to publish harsh criticisms of her methods and her allegations, it slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans.

“As a result, I went back to the beginning of the book and read it all again, but this time my eyes were open and I was not lulled into believing that her motives were noble and that her statements could be supported by logic and by scientific fact. I wrote my comments down in rough draft style, and gathered together the scientific articles that refuted what Carson had reported the articles indicated. It was a most frustrating experience.

“Finally, I began to join the detractors of Silent Spring, and when hearings were held to determine the fate of DDT in various states of this nation, I paid my own way to some of them so that I could testify against the efforts to ban that life-saving insecticide.”

In coming chapters we examine much of the underlying evidence that proves Carson was well off the mark. Her main proof comes from begging the argument. Yet, the EPA continues to remain one of her devout disciples.

The quick case for the EPA

At 18,000 people strong, the EPA is dedicated to destroying the economy of the United States. The choice for those who love America is clear: “The EPA must go.” Let’s say for argument reasons that we keep the EPA, which is Obama’s primo regulatory instrument against the American people. What happens next?

The answer is clear. We would get 18,000 people working against John / Jane Q. Public. That’s us! How is that a good deal for any of us? Most American people would not even be aware there was a war going on between the EPA and the people. When you are unaware, you most often lose big time. Yet, the EPA would still get its $10.5 billion in salaries and costs per year.

The people would have to deal with things like large fertile farmland areas being banned from using available irrigation. We would get a few more endangered little fish and perhaps a few more bug species that we are prohibited from eating or swatting. And, we would get brownouts and a group of bureaucrats determining how much water, gas, and oil, we are permitted to use. They would also determine how much CO2 we could exhale.

In addition to Obamacare’s rationing, the EPA would see to it that a lot of other precious items on their lists were rationed. Forget about double dipping. The EPA might not let you get even the first dip.

As a bonus, we would get to turn off our lights because there would be no power available. We would get seven to ten percent more unemployment because businesses would have no choice but to close. We would find asthmatic children being denied the use of the best-made inhalers, while permitted to use sub-quality EPA approved inhalers that were just a bit more effective than a placebo.

Overall, we would get more than we bargained for from an agency commissioned to help the people. The more research I did for this book, the more I was convinced that this agency has no use for people. It is time to return the favor by electing representatives strong enough to take them on.

The quick case against the EPA

Now, if we get rid of the EPA, what do we get? We get a bunch of thick headed dinosaurs (the EPA staff) that immediately get pink slips. We also get a lot more happy and productive people (us). We get more jobs and we get businesses that can grow instead of being forced to stagnate and die.

We also get farmers who again can farm on rich, irrigated soil without requiring driver’s permits and major government tests to work with typical farm equipment. We get a country full of people who are permitted to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, and light them with Edison’s own incandescent light bulb any time when there is darkness.

And, on top of that, we get energy independence from people who want to kill us. Perhaps more importantly, we escape the outright tyranny of the EPA. How does that sound?

Corporations are not princes either!

For the rest of the Chapter until the Conclusion, we take a break from Rachel Carson and the EPA, and we examine the role of the corporation in government today. We also take a look at the major legislation such as The Clean Air Act, which brought about the EPA.

Life is a balancing act. Corporations were not even permitted to exist as we know them today in early America because they had previously worn out their welcome in old world civilization. Huge corporations such as the British East India Company had dominated trade in the new world before the revolution. Colonists had long decided from this experience that they wanted no corporations in the New World.

The colonists not only freed themselves from England; they got out from under the yoke of English corporations. You remember the Boston Tea Party and the British East India Company. Such corporations decreased the wealth of the people and controlled everyday activity. As you would expect, they were not held in high regard by early Americans.

The founders therefore had a healthy respect for the capability of corporations to dominate all business through ruthless, nasty practices. So, after fighting a revolution to end their exploitation by corporate powers and huge governments, the colonists wisely limited the role of corporations and governments in America. No longer were corporations permitted to have a role in elections, public policy and other aspects of life.

However, corporations were permitted to conduct business that benefitted the public. As for the government, legislators held fast to the Constitution so that bad men could never appear in the future and claim they were good men. Besides God’s Bible for “we the people,” the Constitution became America’s credo for all citizens, one by one. It is not for the powerful. The Constitution was created to protect us all from the more powerful.

To assure that citizens, not collectives or agencies or other artificial entities controlled our country, the founders carved out very limiting rules, which corporations were required to follow. In essence, they reluctantly permitted corporations to exist. The rules made corporations diminutive participants in US trade. They were not permitted to gain the power that they hold today.

You may know the story of the legal slippery slope. It also applies in most aspects of life. Any lawyer will remind us that once in, an entity can gains power, most often they become more and more powerful until eventually, their power is a burden on us all. Because of this fear, for the first 100 years after the revolution, corporations were kept in check by honest legislators. Today, most people think the term “honest legislators” is not much more than an oxymoron. Because we elect thieves and scoundrels into office continually, we do get the government we deserve.

The early public still had memories passed down about the issues with the English corporations and they wanted none of that for America.  Citizens controlled corporations; and through their legislatures, they prohibited corporations from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Much control over corporations came from the corporate charters, which are still granted by the states and not by the federal government. It was the states, and not the federal government that were in control of corporations. The most effective tool in the early days was the notion of an expiration date or as it was called, a time limit. Corporations had an expiration date and were therefore forced out of business after being operational for a set time period.

They were chartered to exist for only a specific period of time and when the time was up, they ceased to exist. Their assets were then divided among the shareholders.

There were lots of other controls, which kept corporate power to a minimum. In many ways, they were the good old days. Greed, however, is a powerful force of change.

During the first half of the 19thCentury, the Supreme Court tried numerous times to usurp the power of the states’ charters in regulating corporations. The public was outraged and the states fought back with modifications to their Constitutions and other measures to assure that the federal government would not steal their power.

Eventually, it seemed that the Supreme Court had heard the people and the states. In the 1855 case of Dodge v. Woolsey, for example, the court reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies." Of course these artificial bodies were known to the citizens as the corporations.

The Captains of Industry continued to expand their businesses by forming more and more corporations. They were not about to be stopped. They kept pressing in one way or another for politicians to view the corporate light in their favor, They worked subtly and openly with politicians and crooked legislators and eventually they were able to gain more power for their corporate entities.

Though It is unpleasant to consider, they gained more power through quid pro quo actions with those corrupt officials, which they could buy-off. These corporate moguls were able to “hire” legislators and judges who believed the limits of corporate power could be expanded. How convenient! Eventually, the courts and the legislatures acknowledged the power of the chieftains and granted their wishes. Corporate power was on the rise.

Why do people go bad?

Greed is a powerful motivator and lust for power is a close second. Early Americans had an America almost as exactly as they had wanted it, without major league important entities like corporations or huge government agencies. The early colonists were not interested in giving up the sovereignty of the people to forces more powerful than ordinary citizens. Once the powerful band together to control the people’s government, the people are inevitably left behind.

Without a vigilant watchdog in the government, corporations in the late 1800 period gained substantial power inch by inch. They grew stronger, and for the most part, ordinary people were unaware of the slippery slope of the power creep, and the nasty ways the titans used their power.

When power is not in the hands of the people, the government and the courts become easier prey. The industry captains about 100 years or more ago had their way. By keeping lawmakers and judges squarely in their pockets, corporate mahoffs were able to freely reinterpret the U.S. Constitution to transform the meaning of common law doctrines to suit their selfish purposes rather than serve for the common good.

Unfortunately for us all, it got even worse. In 1886, the Supreme Court stole more states’ rights when it noted that a corporation henceforth was to be treated as a “natural person.“

Once corporations had the right of personhood, they increased their control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. For 100 years the corporate powers were kept in check but ultimately corruption and powerful corporate titans ruled the day.

Corruption of public officials is one of the most insidious enemies of freedom and liberty. Corporations have the resources to buy people who are weak. As the first means of preserving the Republic for as long as possible, the Founders protected the people against such huge sources of power. Unfortunately, the people’s representatives, the early Congresses of our nation sold out the people to the corporations and permitted the rich and powerful to gain control of the government. Today’s Congresses seem to continue the tradition that American is on the auction block.

As another means of guaranteeing the Republic, the founders provided elections to assure that the people were in control of the government. The Founders believed that the people would elect the best citizens to hold office for brief periods and that the citizens would come back to their farms or work places after serving in Congress. They did not expect that the people would reelect thieves into office.

The Founders perhaps did not realize that when the thieves have power, they can grant privileges to the commoners. A problem with human nature is that there are many people who like to pick the thief they know and permit them to represent their needs to the government. For helping the cheats get elected, the people are then rewarded by the thieves with largesse, such as jobs and other important benefits.

To keep such political favors coming their way, the people can become as corrupt as the rascals they elect to assure that spoils and largesse continue to come their way. It is a shame but we all know it is true. We get the government we deserve.

Giving up one’s vote and taking favors that are not justified is just as corrupt as politicians taking from the corporations. So, to straighten out this mess, and to defang the EPA, and the corporations and the causes the EPA represents, we must all become better people. Only then can we be worthy of better representatives. Only then will we choose the best for the country.

As another major means of assuring the Republic, the Founders gave us the second most profound document of all time after the Bible – the Constitution. Like other constitutions, the Constitution of the United States of America is a set of fundamental principles and/or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. Our Constitution is a most eloquent document and though short, it is very comprehensive. It has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments, including freedom of speech, are known as the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution, when strictly adhered to by government, is intended to control even the most corrupt of politicians. But, as we have seen, even with all these instruments of excellent government, as provided by the Founders, we continue to have greed and corruption because humans are not perfect, and are prone to sin. We must become better people to deserve a better government. I believe we can do that.

I introduce the rise of corporate power in this essay because if the corporations were not so powerful and so self serving, the people would be able to again control them and keep them from committing acts against the people, including acts against the environment.

Yes, the air must be clean and breathable

In the 1960’s in the post-war boom, more and more people were driving those magnificent automobiles of those times and the air quality, from exhaust emissions along with corporate smokestacks was becoming noticeably bad. In Los Angeles, for example, on a few particularly bad days, it was so bad that some people even died. They could not breathe with all the smog— (Smoke that hovered like fog).

Congress took action at the time. They passed the Air Quality Act first in 1967 and later the Clean Air Act in 1970. In many ways, enforcement of the Clean Air Act made the air much better though nothing good ever happens over night. It takes time for improvements. And, improvements did come and the air became very breathable in California again. The rest of the nation was not suffering as they were in California.

The formal objective of the acts were (1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; (2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; (3) to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and (4) to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.

Clearly the most important of these acts was # 1 and because of this act, the air today is much better. It got better fairly quickly in a five year period after the act had become law. Air quality can always get better but from this experience we learned that we must move in incremental steps.

For years now, people are no longer dying from bad air, even in Los Angeles. Consequently, it should not serve the EPA well to put farmers out of business and create food shortages; to put coal and oil and gas companies out of business and create energy shortages; or to wreak other havoc on Americans that is unjustified. Yet, because they seemingly have no constraints, the EPA believes there should be no countervailing authority to their power, and they simply do as they please. The needs of people do not matter to this agency.

The Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act came out in 1970. It evolved from the Air Quality Act of 1967 and it has been “improved” by a series of detailed control requirement amendments in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The regulatory parts of the Clean Air Act are as follows:

(1) All new and existing sources are prohibited from emitting pollution that exceeds ambient air quality levels.

(2) Ambient air quality program is implemented through state implementation plans (SIPs).

(3) New sources are subject to more stringent control technology and permitting requirements.

The Act addressed specific pollution problems, most of which scientists agreed were real. These included hazardous air pollution and visibility impairment.

(4) In 1990, a fourth program was added - a comprehensive operating permit program to focus in one place, all of the Clean Air Act requirements that apply to a given source of pollution.

Man and Nature Together

A balance must be made between the requirements of environmental acts and the ability to live. When man and nature conflict, it is not man that should choose to die.

Please note this major Act was not passed by the EPA. It was passed by our Congress to help the people gain clean air. It was a good idea. We should not kill Congress, just the EPA, which has gotten out of hand. Congress is vital to our Nation’s health but we could use a nice new broom to sweep many of the most entrenched and corrupt politicians out the door.

Quite often we don’t know why the EPA does what it does. The clean air act was and continues to be good for America. Most of the good in the act, however, has already been done and it was done well. Having a group of guerrillas, such as the EPA using semi-terroristic acts to harass Americans at home or in their businesses is not a good idea and it was never the intention of the act or the EPA. That is the problem with the EPA. Now that the air is reasonably clean and states have huge environmental departments, the people can breathe without the job-killing EPA.

Corporations are built to survive!

So, now that we have defined the notion of a corporation and we looked at the general points of the clean air acts, why can’t everything just be OK? Left on their own, we know that corporations are beneficent citizens and will always do what they can to make America a better place – even if it cost them a bit of bottom line profits. Of course I am kidding. I sure wish that was the case but corporations have only selfish motives. Their most powerful motivation is survival.

Perhaps corporations are simply enterprises of self interest, whose one and only goal after survival is to increase shareholder profitability. I would agree to that if the corporate moguls would agree. Corporations are surely more like greedy collectors than beneficent benefactors.

Corporations do anything to survive. When environmental regulations come their way; for the sake of survival, and no other reason, corporations will do for the public only what is needed to survive, and typically not much more. When regulations are such that they are unreasonable and unwirkable, corporations as well as we the people will do our best to not comply so that we can all survive.

Are corporations really bad for the environment?

Yes, it is true that large unincorporated entities and large corporations have been documented to be some of the worst polluters of all time. Moreover, they have been documented to have been engaged in systematic cover-ups to avoid detection. Escape and Evasion has always been their best avenue for survival.

Corporate chem scams?

As you look for issues, consider that when the EPA guerillas are outside your fences, you are most typically inclined to hide your important stuff. Expect the same from corporations—even though it is not right. The US chemical industry, in particular, intrinsically believes that it can be put out of existence with one bad report. With today’s cutthroat EPA, they are correct.

So, before a chemical company concludes that it can ever comply with regulations, as a rule, it hides from regulations and the regulators using whatever escape and evasion techniques that it can invent. The companies in many ways are like kids that discovered they had actually eaten so many cookies that the bottom of the jar was beginning to show. Chem companies know when they are in trouble as soon as they get into trouble.

To protect themselves and to survive, chemical companies conjure plans over time to privately fund research. Their objective is not compliance but a desire to gain information needed to devise responses to any potential threat from agencies or environmentalists.

Perhaps if they thought the EPA was a fair and reasonable agency (not that they needed to jump in bed with them), corporations would spend their dollars incrementally improving their predicament, rather than paying tons of lawyers to make the problems go away on technicalities.

Industry understands the risks of pollution better than anybody but the leaders of the companies do not trust that they can share identified risks with the EPA or the public or their days would be numbered. “Guerillas in fatigues,” which is how I would characterize the EPA do not evoke the notion that cooperation is the best strategy. Therefore businesses, large and small, chose escape and evasion as their strategy and lawyers are very good at such techniques.

Company tactics were to release just enough information to reassure people of the safe nature of their products, and that they worked, and they would cover up any uncertainties or potential problems tirelessly, to stop any government regulation or intervention.

Plastics in the Food Industry

As you are sipping on your water bottle or a Gatorade right now, or drinking a nice cold cocktail in a huge plastic goblet, you may be oblivious to the possibility of toxins from the plastic seeping into your libation. Yet, we know from published reports that certain plastics have been found to be more toxic than others. In the 1970’s however, when chemical companies were all excited about the potential use of plastic in the food and beverage industry, the data was not always available that things were safe or unsafe. Don’t forget the Chemical Company’s credo of escape and evasion.

You may remember or you may have read that in the 1970’s negative data emerged from European investigators that certain plastics were linked to cancer. Can you imagine how this spooked the chemical industry? Plastics were becoming the most successful products ever produced from chemistry techniques. Yet, there were potential health dangers. What would you do if you knew there was even a potential risk of poison from a food container? That’s why chemical producers felt escape and evasion was their best tactic.

Companies were worried that the public might view all plastics as threatening to health if there was full disclosure, and so items like plastic wrap, hairsprays, floor coverings, and a ton of other consumer products would be at risk. So, the US chemical industry’s response was to deceive the government and mislead the public in order to hide the link between plastic and any potential for health dangers.

By the way, the EPA, persistently and religiously follows its “love nature first” agenda. Because of this, one might think that there was an EPA war against chemical companies. Contrary to popular belief, however, it was not the EPA agency that blew the lid on chemical company issues.

In 1973, the EPA was just a startup agency. It was the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that took on the chemical companies. Today, the FDA often is forced to take orders from the EPA. Back in the early 1970’s however, the EPA was the agency that learned that plastic liquor and wine bottles were leaching vinyl chloride into the liquor and wine. Ultimately the FDA banned its use for liquor bottles.  Today, Boxed wines with the special plastic bag inserts are considered food safe as are specially made plastics for liquor containers.

The kind of plastic that booze comes in is polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This leeches much less toxin than the other types of plastic bottles.Most of who consume such products are noticeably still alive. Overall, the FDA considers them safe today but then again, there is nothing like glass.

There are some Seniors of today who are thankful that the FDA found the problem a long time ago. In the 1970’s many of today’s oldsters were just in their late teens and early 20’s. Looking back, however, the penniless college coed of that era would have not had a worry anyway as the popular beverages of the time for the “I’m broke, how about you crowd!” were Ripple and Swizzle and other potent “wine-like” products. These were packaged in glass containers.

Ripple and Swizzle were the lowest cost products (rotgut) that a young person with limited funds could buy. It seems the only ones whose brains were affected negatively now serve in Congress. We know it was not caused by the plastic.

One of the honest industry studies did find that vinyl chloride residues from bottles and packages had also migrated into vinegar, apple cider, vegetable oil, mineral oil and onto meats. Over time, after these variants of plastic products were withdrawn, better and safer food-grade plastic products were developed. The FDA is continually double checking that all is OK, and for that I am grateful. The FDA has its own issues but they actually do protect the people from the corporations.

Under FDA guidelines when new packaging materials are developed for food use, the FDA reviews the submitted test data and must be satisfied with the product for its intended use before it gives the OK.

The FDA checks out a lot of factors in its attempt to assure human safety. For plastics, it checks the migration potential and the substances with which they are made. The objective of course is for the packaging not to migrate into the food. Tests are conducted to assure that there is just a minimal amount of transfer between a plastic package and the food it contains and that any transfer does not pose a risk to human health. The FDA’s mission is to assure that humans are safe from factors that affect food and drugs. The rule of thumb continues to be that if you can taste the plastic, discard the container.

The EPA operates differently from the FDA. From my perspective, they work like a bunch of thugs, with their major purpose to assure that nature is not harmed by man. If it were up to the EPA, I would bet that the harmful plastic products would still be on the market as it would shorten human life. In this way, each human would have less of an impact on nature. Maybe that is too harsh a thought. Maybe not! I have no proof of this per se, just a conclusion formed by reading and observation.  In summary, the FDA is mostly good; the EPA is mostly bad.

Conservatives are on fire

Conservatives on Fire at http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com

...offer a smorgasbord of stories on the various government agencies. When I say, the FDA is mostly good; I think that is about right. The EPA is downright corrupt and very dangerous to the economy. The other agencies also get carried away sometimes with their excessive power but their adopted charters, unlike the EPA’s is not to mess up the country. Moreover, they typically like to help the people at large, rather than position people as subservient to nature.

Conservatives on fire (COF) is a group that is up in arms over the FDA, USDA, and EPA, who they refer to as “Obama’s Storm Troopers in Action.” They got their stories originally from the Daily Caller but their blog posts are ripe with comments about the government agencies under Obama. A commenter at the end of a number of stories noted the TSA also needs to be on the list of bad agencies and the COF agreed. 

Conservatives on fire think that the governmental agencies charged with monitoring and “helping” us are all out of control and they picked these stories because they “make their blood boil.” At first, you will be inclined to laugh but please hold back the laughter because unlike some light-hearted stuff in this book, this is silly, but in a very hurtful way to those directly affected. In many ways, we are all affected.

“The first story has to do with the FDA and an Amish farmer.

“In April 2010, federal agents descended on the dairy farm of Dan Allgyers in Pennsylvania. The Amish farmer produces unpasteurized milk on his farm and sells it to families who prefer dairy products in their natural state.

“The sale of unpasteurized milk has been illegal under federal law since 1987, but that doesn’t keep clever farmers and customers from making it work, usually by forming private clubs where raw milk is a benefit of club membership. Selling unpasteurized milk is legal inside 10 states.

“So, back in 1987 the FDA determines that there is ‘some’ risk to consuming raw milk and writes a law prohibiting the sale of unpasteurized milk. But some people believe there are actual health benefits to drinking raw milk and they want raw milk for their families. To get around the law, these people have worked with dairy farmers to form private clubs, which allow club members to buy the milk they want. But the FDA Storm Troopers put a stop to Farmer Dan’s illegal operation. However, this time the Storm Troopers have stirred-up a hornets’ nest. “

The farmer joined a group protesting the FDA’s heavy-handed approach to raw dairy. Most of the protesters get their products from Farmer Dan, and are hoping a Ron Paul-sponsored bill will prevent the FDA from getting in theirs and Dan’s business in the future. --- http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/raw-milk-it-tastes-like-freedom/#ixzz1abTYQOf4

Ron Paul is the best person on freedom and liberty in the country from whom I think Farmer Dan could expect help.

“The second story has to do with the USDA and little bunny rabbits. Here are some excerpts from the story:

“It started out as a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Nixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.

“But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.

“A fine of over $90,000 seems a bit steep, doesn’t it? The family’s lawyer thought so too.

“ ‘My client rejects that proposal,’ wrote their attorney, Richard Anderson, in a  May 19 letter, noting that according to USDA’s own literature, its 6,000 annual enforcement cases average ‘a penalty of $333.33 per case, and yet you contend it would be appropriate my client tender a penalty of $90,643.00.’

“From an average case fine of $333 to over $90,000, I’d say that is a bit of overreaching by the Storm Troopers. But here is what a USDA spokesperson had to say:

“USDA spokesman Sacks said the $90,643 fine ‘looks curious to say the least.’ But, he insisted it was necessary for USDA to punish violators to ensure businesses across the country register, putting them on the USDA’s radar screen for inspections and possible enforcement [in other areas besides milk.]”

Above is from Stormtroopers piece on Conservatives on fire; below is from a Commenter on Stormtroopers:

“May 25, 2011

“Don’t forget the TSA! They sent a letter to Texas saying that if they passed the law that would make some of the pat-downs illegal and a felony, that they would establish a no-fly zone over Texas. Re-blogged about it this morning. Can this possibly be legal?”

The moral of the story is don’t mess with Obama. He will get you with one agency or another.

Chapter Summary

This chapter contains peripheral and background information that will help in understanding how far out of the mainstream of rationale thought the EPA has drifted. From the Silent Spring days of Rachel Carson, Americans have been blessed by an attentive Congress and the Office of the President in keeping the air and the water safe for all humankind in the United States. As we move further on in this book, however, you will see that Silent Spring was way too loud in its prescription for overkill on the protection front.

Nobody thinks that America is not better off for the environmental protection that we have received over the years since the big smog episodes in LA in the 1960’s. Some of the help came from the EPA and lots came from the states’ Departments of Environmental Resources. With the plastics issues and food issues, a lot of good help also came from the F.D.A.

As you will see in subsequent chapters, when something gets so big like the EPA; it takes on a life of its own, and when it no longer works for the people, it is time for it to go. The EPA has long outlived its usefulness to the American people. It now appears that it is more powerful than the Congress that once drafted the legislation creating this agency gone wild. President Obama would like nothing more than to help marginalize the power of Congress through the use of his EPA.

The EPA over the years has morphed into something that is dangerous for Americans. Though we are all interested in clean air and clean water, it helps to remember that the Clean Air Act and other such positive legislation were enacted by Congress, not the EPA. They were well needed and they did their job for years. The EPA, as an agency of the US government, had a job to create regulations that were in the spirit of the laws created by the Congress. For awhile it did its job well, but as it got bigger, it decided that it would solve all of the problems of the planet, and along the way, it decided that mankind was the biggest problem.

As the Holiday Season has past us in 2011, it helps to recall that the EPA came up with just one clever wish for Christmas…if only it could do something about all the people who were exhaling CO2. Thankfully, the EPA is not powerful enough yet to actually take action to reduce the number of humans on the planet.

For the EPA, as we repeat often in this book, Mother Nature does come first. Humans have been documented for ages as the biggest polluters. So, why should the EPA like humans? 

Chapter 10

Obama Is the Master Game Player

 

Congress does not know how to win!

Congress is the source of our problems—not the solution—especially when the President is a winner-takes-all player and he plays the voter sales game so well. He is so adept at winning conversations, speeches, and debates that most Americans know Congress will lose each time he is in the game. In between skirmishes, Congress chooses not to gain the skills to beat him. He is surely a gamesman of the finest caliber, and no Congress has ever seen the likes of this President.

Unfortunately, Obama has no substance and the conservatives do not know how to even suggest that he is a shill in debate, without appearing to beg the argument. Since the President does have this inglorious power of persuasion, if only he cared about Americans, we might not be having this conversation.

The fact is Obama cares nothing about real Americans or real life. He lives in a Rod Serling twilight zone of perceptions. He is not concerned about being a real president, and he proves it every day. But, at the end of the day, Obama has the uncanny talent to convince many Americans that despite his not looking out for them that day, he is their only hope for tomorrow. He is just so well practiced at it that many buy it. His essence in fact depends on the people buying his game.

So, when he engages with his kindergarten ideology, which no one in Congress is willing to take-on effectively, inevitably Obama wins the day because his energy is superior, and his fervor to win is unmatched. Obama never runs out of the juices he needs to continue campaigning. Americans see him battling everyday and they admire him for that simply because we are all taught to stick with it—don’t give up. Obama never gives up and he has more lives than the strongest cat.

Sticking with it and not giving up is the Obama way. It is extremely effective. The first time Americans hear his nonsense, it sounds like nonsense. After a hundred more times it sounds like facts that they have heard before. This makes Obama very dangerous and very difficult to marginalize. People may get sick of seeing him on TV but somehow, he keeps at it incessantly and somehow, it is very effective for him.

Conservatives ought to find out why this is so and create an effective strategy to stop Obama baloney from becoming the accepted standard for purity.

In each appearance, there is no improvement. He is armed with the same foolish and illogical stuff but he actually transcends the asininity of his message. Normal Americans cannot fully analyze all of his empty rhetoric. Nobody in history has ever been able to lie so well. All together the package most often sounds good.  So, many buy it without analysis.

Those who pay attention hate his message, but even these Americans admire his tenacity. Obama takes fire and he is still standing. It is the only thing American about Barack Hussein Obama. He is not willing to give up on Barack Hussein Obama. He believes 100% in Barack Hussein Obama. He is obviously narcissistic but he is very effective at the same time.

That certainly does not mean he is a good president, but it shows that Obama is the most important thing Obama has ever encountered. Somehow, that form of confident delivery is the message structure for which conservatives have no answer. An answer must be found or I fear Obama drivel will be able to conquer reason.

Earth to conservatives: You are losing and nothing substantial is on the table because gamesmanship is beating you. Figure out what you need to do to get ordinary Americans to demand the gamesman in chief to put something real on the table to discuss.

One additional suggestion:  Obama and his surrogate the EPA would be pleased to place anything on the table after he has won the battle.  Watch out, the fight will be very unfair. The only thing conservatives have on their side is the truth, which by itself is unconvincing. When Obama lies, most believe he is telling the truth. That is a big problem for conservatives. Somebody out there in the conservative world is smart enough to build a strategy to defeat Obama rhetoric, and it needs to be done quickly.

This President has great political resiliency. Even when he is buried, I have seen him rise again to destroy conservatives with his rhetoric. Eric Holder and the EPA are his enforcer units so they stay no matter what and it is Congress—even with the fall 2011 EPA legislation, who will begin to doubt themselves and I fear that the fervor of Obama will again win the day. No wonder America is disappointed with Congress. Obama slaps them around every day and they do not know how to combat his poignant jabs.

In Pennsylvania, Obama gets lots of help and it really assists him with the regular people. I suspect he has surrogates in all states who are supposed to be members of Congress but like the children, they too are mesmerized by the Pied Piper of Chicago. Each time he is needed for an extra boost, for example, our Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Jr. rises to the occasion to assure the people of Pennsylvania that Obama is the real deal and it is circumstances, not substance that make the President appear to be failing. For those of us really tuned in, we know Obama has no substance and he is failing without doubt.

If you are not paying attention, it is easy to buy the Casey balderdash!

Each time Obama wins, the EPA wins and the people lose.

Obama, as he is losing appears to many to be a winner while the conservatives, who really are winning appear to many to be losing. It is a matter of energy, consistency, and an overwhelming desire to win. The Obama people are trained more than likely by football coaches to never die until the biggest game is well over and it is tucked away in the win column.

Obama looks at each of the little issues as some coaches’ view the unimportant games before the big games. But, their training says that they cannot afford to lose even a scintilla because each little piece adds up cumulatively to become something substantial. Conservatives need to go to the same trainers as the Obama team.

The Obama’s never seem to accept anything other than positive press from any media, anywhere. The media is on notice that Obama takes no negative press. They liberal press loves him anyway and they hardly ever report the truth.

The conservatives seem to evaluate the value of the loss when the media slanders them, and if it is small, they don’t argue with the press, even when they are right. Obama argues when he is wrong and he argues immediately, and thoroughly, and is unrelenting until he wins. Right or wrong does not matter. Winning is all important to Obama. His compulsion to win is so strong, I’ll bet he beats Malia and Sasha in Parcheesi and Checkers. All other things being equal, regardless of the facts, Obama’s persistence wins.

That is the only reason why a guy with such a miserable record as president can stand in front of the American people and brag about how well he is doing. He tells lies so well because he believes them. Potential next election voters, many of whom are asleep, think the great prevaricator, is the man with the truth. Those conservatives bearing the truth have little chance against such a master liar.

That makes Obama tough to touch when there is no substance in the debate or when he has the last word. He and his team are the most formidable campaign opponents who anybody on the side of righteousness and justice could ever conceive of having to compete against. From day one of his term, Obama has been campaigning. Eventually, you get pretty good at what you do when you do it all the time. A lousy president, he is for sure, but he is the greatest campaigner of all time. Forget about the issues for awhile. On the issues, conservatives win. The Obama rhetoric is really the problem. It is tough to defeat the master of rhetoric but it is vitally important.

By the time he is finished, Obama, with his split tongue and his team, without regard for the people they affect, care about one thing—winning the game.

Unfortunately, because conservatives see the Obama game as reality, they are not as prepared to compete and thus, the unprepared conservatives, as expected, inevitably lose the game. And, when inevitably that happens, America also loses.

Can Americans be persuaded again in 2012, by snake oil and snake charm to forget about all the times they said the “guy is a jerk” and “bad for America?”  It is dangerous to say “no” as the answer to that question. If he orders the EPA to hold off on the light bulb regulations and he promises a little something for everybody—something everybody thinks they need—as a post election gift, will Americans get sucked in and say: Bravo, Obama is the man?

Of course the contingency for any Obama gift is that Obama wins the presidency. But, one must be paying attention to know that. Will the promise of having Obama in office again mean some people will have more, rather than less in their stomachs? You know which way the prevaricator in chief will move the public. Expect it; defend it; and defeat it!

It is a masterful strategy to “lead from behind,” and take credit for all the gains and complain about all the losses. Having the EPA run the bad messages through the press so the White House can remain aloof is also a great strategy. It makes Obama appear presidential and not like the puppet master we really know he is—the master behind the EPA.

So, conservatives who really agree that the “EPA must be killed,” need to understand they are dealing with the master of persuasion, Barack Hussein Obama. They must be well armed intellectually and strategy-wise to engage, in order to have a chance at success. If Obama wins all the little battles, the conservatives will lose the big battles and the EPA will survive and therefore, America will not survive.

Of course there is always the hope that the people of the United States, who love the country, are greater in number than it appeared they were when the Obama vote count was tallied in 2008. The people, when united for a cause, can stop anything when the people pay attention. But, if the message comes only from the media, there may be a big problem in 2012. Obama may become the next president because real Americans may think it is OK to sleep when boring politicians are speaking.

Might there be a psychologist somewhere who can train conservatives to win when faced with a talking blank page of paper—BHO, a handsome head with no substance? So far, I agree with the fine couple from Seattle. I have yet to see a person in Congress ready to face and beat the campaigner in chief. It takes an awful lot of energy.

I would suggest to Congress that it add the kind of staff that the President has for its outside communication efforts. This should include multiple press secretaries and strategy analysts so that Congress has people working full time just like the President has. Having the Speaker or other ranking conservative members of the House or Senate do all the talking may help at times, but Obama’s message needs to be defeated every single day. The Congress cannot govern the nation from Congress (a huge committee) every day and also have an answer to the Obama senseless snipe of the day. It is a full time job for a full time staff.

As a point of fact, when I informed the folks from Seattle that I was running for the Senate, they repeated the same charge for my benefit. I am unproven and so far at least, unelected. However, I clearly understood that this sample of America wants a Congress that is not concerned about their inept leadership but instead care about the courage of their own convictions. I think when I take my seat, I will be ready for the big fight but I can understand why nobody in America thinks Congress-- House and Senate-- are worth two cents.

Sources:

http://obamalies.net/obama-the-tyrant.html