The “God” of the EPA is Mother Nature
Mother Nature Über Alles
Terms such as hypocritical and a few other contemptible non-virtues at first may appear to be over-kill in describing the Environmental Protection Agency until you look just under the covers to find that the EPA is simply outrageous. The EPA is malevolent and their decisions are shockingly corrupt, biased, and almost always anti-American. The EPA has a god. Its name is Mother Nature.
When the EPA sees man punishing their god in any way through pollution or even perceived pollution, EPA regulations are cast to punish humankind to the point of death. Ask the millions who have died or almost died in poor third world countries because the EPA believes that DDT negatively affects Mother Nature. Then ask the real scientists who have proven that DDT is safe. You will learn about this issue in detail in this book.
The EPA Is Born
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed in December, 1970 in the US by the Nixon administration to deal with pollution.
Nixon was certainly not an environmental whacko and there were lots of reasons at the time to create an agency to advise the president on matters of the environment and pollution. The stated mission of the EPA was to “conduct environmental research, provide assistance…[in] combating environmental pollution, and assist the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending…new policies for environmental protection…to the President.” That’s it. The EPA was not supposed to become a guerilla anti-capitalist, pro-Mother Nature stand-alone army engaging war against all humans and all businesses run by humans.
For those who remember the Nixon years, there is no way our President Richard Nixon would have put an agency in place that would serve as an ideologically driven monstrosity with a mission to usurp executive power to mandate the most severe eco-centered, brazenly anti-capitalist environmental regulations imaginable. Even the EPA guidelines are off the wall. The regulations have become deadly. All Richard Nixon hoped to achieve in the creation of this agency was a research and advisory role for both himself and future presidents. Nixon’s EPA were not enforcers.
The slippery slope is alive and well and it is fully manifest today in the EPA, and agency that at least in its present form, simply should not exist. The EPA is a case study in mission creep. If you are wondering who the EPA’s next victim will be look no further than the closest mirror. Forget about Uncle Sam, the EPA wants Y-O-U.
Ron Paul: Pollution exists because of EPA
In late 2011, Ron Paul had demonstrated how, in his presidential administration the budget would be balanced in three years by eliminating five federal agencies. Specifically, he wants to eliminate the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. Ironically, of the five huge agencies that Paul targeted, the EPA was not on his list. So, many of us are very interested in how the champion of liberty views this rogue agency.
On the Ron Paul forum, a blogger by the name of GoodA$Gold asked a question about Dr. Paul’s position on the EPA. His forum question follows:
“What will Ron Paul try to do with the Environmental ProtectionAgency and what are his reasonings? Thank you.”
The Ron Paul forum answer is as follows:
“As with any federal agency, it [the EPA] is not authorized by the Constitution and is therefore not to be funded by your money. If you wish to fund a private organization, then that is your prerogative.
“His way of dealing with pollution is to examine and respect property rights within the courts. That means that if someone pollutes on your property, you sue them. Private property ownership is always better maintained then public ownership. By recognizing in the courts that you can sue the government or a company that pollutes on your land will cause the polluters to be hurt by pollution instead of taxpayers. This will create incentive to eliminate pollution instead of just creating rhetoric and doing nothing about the problem.
“The EPA stands to lose their jobs if they solve this problem so they are on a tight wire of having to make it seem like they are working to fight pollution but having every motivation for pollution to continue to be a problem.”
Don’t Breathe! Literally!
Among items that should make the late talk shows get a real chuckle, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently (so to speak) declared Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as harmful to humans. What joke was ever told on late-night TV in which the exhaled carbon dioxide was less than the normal emission? When a talent is hitting crescendo on a hot joke, you can hear the extra breathing and of course that means more exhaled pollution in the form of CO2. So, does that make late-night TV hazardous to the health of the studio audience? Maybe so! Check the fine print in the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations.
Can it be that the EPA checked its own CO2 emissions with a government provided meter and the readings got them concerned about the action they would have been forced to take if it had been us, instead of them? The evidence from their website is inconclusive.
A trip to the EPA website says that CO2 is naturally occurring, as well as man-made. I don’t have a problem with that statement. What I have a problem with and what you should have a problem with regarding the EPA is their claim that CO2 is harmful. If so, to whom? Without CO2, we would have no plants as they breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen.
By the way, only a small percentage of the CO2 produced on earth is man-made. The oceans are the largest contributor and most of the “emissions,” therefore are natural, unless, of course the EPA figures out how to ban the oceans from producing waves.
EPA ignores own rules
The Daily Caller on September 28, 2011 announced that there was an EPA report available dating back to April 2011. It was about how the agency ignored their own rules to push out damaging regulations. Yet, somehow the report was kept a secret until Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe demanded its release.
The inspector general had found that the EPA had failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process. Therefore, it did not have the authority to take any action on greenhouse gases. Yet, it did anyway. Under its own rules, it did not have enough proof that it could issue the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “public health and welfare.” Since it did not have enough proof, it did not have enough authority by law, yet they chose to proceed without having sufficient evidence. They were above their own rules. Sorry EPA, that is just not good enough for what we pay you.
Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”
The Obama administration blamed Congress for inaction about a greenhouse gas claim that the EPA had not ever proven. Obama actually threatens to go around the Congress against the Constitution and take matters into its own hands. Obama would more than bless the undertaking. He would order it. His executive orders would permit the EPA to directly regulate greenhouse gases despite it not having completed its work. In essence, Obama has challenged the Congress to act on its own, or his plan would empower his agency, the EPA, full of government loving bureaucrats, to do it for the Congress. And, all Americans as well as our Constitutional Republic would suffer.
If you want to reduce government spending, one key accomplishment and the major recommendation in this book is to eliminate the entire department. More and more conservatives are convinced the solution is a big roll back in power or a full elimination of the agency. “The EPA has got to go!” We show you how to eliminate these tyrants in this book.
The EPA is not the only waste
While we are eliminating waste, we should also consider for that matter, eliminating the government’s youth propaganda machine, the Department of Education. Future members of the EPA breed from the propaganda spewed from the Education Department.
There are a number of other governmental agencies on my short list of things to go, all of which can be eliminated or at least severely shrunken. They are literally killing us. Getting rid of a ton of them would help Americans breathe easier. It would also help us get our fiscal house in order. Our breath is not something that is owned by any governmental agency.
If we were to work hard to reduce our multi-trillion dollar debt, and if we decided that one good way would be to provide an environment in which corporations would not have to be prodded to participate, we would need to eliminate those government agencies that scurrilously, intentionally and directly hurt the private industries in the United States without really providing any countervailing benefit to the people. The EPA is the chief culprit. It is simply outrageous.
A brief EPA abuse egregious example:
California farmers know how contemptible and outrageous the EPA can be. The farmers of the highly fertile Central Valley are being starved out of existence and denied water for growing crops because of a small fish called the delta smelt.
The EPA offers no compromises; this bait fish used by salmon fishermen, is winning in the courts for the EPA. California farmers who can no longer provide irrigation for their crops and all other Americans lost as food is in shorter supply and it is more expensive. The progressive courts in California always take the fish’s side against the farmers. The fish lives on but the crops died, and the farmers are on welfare. So, who really won that battle?
If it were a nasty mosquito instead of a stinky little smelt, the EPA would still have insisted the farmers pay the price with their livelihoods. Meanwhile American food prices are skyrocketing. The key fact here is that farmers are human, and mosquitoes, nasty as they are, exist in Mother Nature’s domain. The EPA loves Mother Nature and as a rule does not like humans.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) had done positive things in the past, but in recent times it has been putting people out of work while increasing the price of food. So, if the EPA loves you and your family, why do they favor little fish over humans and why do they try to regulate CO2, which is a human exhalent? The EPA says it is a greenhouse gas and al such gasses are bad? Knowledgeable scientists, not those on the EPA payroll, see the EPA’s callous disregard for humankind as impacting about every industry in the United States.
Natural transition--coal to other energy
The earth is neither always warm nor always cold. Before the EPA came into existence, people on their own had begun to gravitate to electric heat and / or gas or oil heat from individual coal fired stoves and furnaces.
Before the EPA came into existence, people lived productive lives without the threat of their power being turned off by some biased, fact-less bureaucrat. The move of the American population over many years to oil, gas, and electric energy happened because it was more convenient and it was overall cheaper to burn than coal. The EPA did not inform Americans that coal was not the best bet for their homes as the EPA did not exist when the transition began.
In the home, the transition from coal to other energy sources was one little furnace at a time. One family replaced their coal fired units at a time though the conversion cost them a substantial percentage of their take-home pay.
They did it because it was good for them in the long haul. Uncle Sam had no input as it should be in America. People are not dummies. Yes, it was a lot of dollars in future savings for each and every family that convinced them to make the costly move. The environmental result was that over time, less and less pollution from coal occurred without the EPA guiding the people’s every move.
My family and my parents’ families never even had coal furnaces. We had two coal stoves on the first floor of my parents’ home. One was a Heatrola which stood in the Dining Room and provided the major heat for the house. There was also a kitchen stove that heated part of the house and the water, and it also provided a means of cooking things on the top or the middle sections. In retrospect, it was impressive.
Anything needing to be boiled sat on top of the old Wilkes-Barre or Pittston Stoves in my home town and anything that needed to be baked went in the oven. We had both brands of stove over the years in our home as one would die and another would replace it.
An innovative invention called a “hot water back” permitted water to circulate within the stove and the house’s plumbing system carried that “heated” water to the bathtub upstairs. We did not know that it was unusual at the time, but all nine of us in the six room home brushed our teeth and washed our faces from the water running in the upstairs bathtub. There was no bathroom sink in our house – ever. There was just one commode and yes, patience is a virtue.
The hot water back permitted people like me in the 1950’s and 1960’s to bathe in hot water. In the summer, when all stoves were off it was a bit tougher but we managed. Eventuallly, we got gas and a gas stove. So, we bought some galvanized buckets and two buckets of hot water drug up to the tub made a reasonably OK bath. Showers? What were they? We did not find out about them til we went to high school. No, I am not kidding.
People moving from coal to gas, to electricity, and even to oil were better deals for the environment than the coal and wood smokestacks of every house in every city sending up their own emissions to the chagrin of Mother Nature.
As desirable as the move might have been, there were a lot of hard working parents who could not afford the move to other technology and so coal was a way of life and for some it remained their only means of cooking and heating for some time to come. For some, it still is.
In this book, you will see that the EPA is not concerned about life as we know it and care about it. The EPA cares little about the struggles of humans and so don’t trust that their clean air mantra means that they hope you are around to breathe it.
We all want to breathe fresh air and drink clean water but we also must live first. Regardless of the impact on humans, the EPA, if it could, and it is trying like hell, would force all to go either cold or go totally green. I think they would prefer us to go cold, because no energy use has less impact on the environment than even a green home.
Looking at it objectively, you would conclude that the desire of the EPA is un-American and unconstitutional to boot. An agency whose 18,000 workers collect paychecks because their charter is that they work for the needs of Americans, should not be paying homage only to Mother Nature and Barack Obama. As quickly as possible, the EPA, an agency gone badly, must die or they will enact legislation that forces us to die quietly so there is no noise pollution.
EPA says wear thick clothing in bed
Some say that we must rely on foreign oil because we “cannot” drill for it here in our own country. Much of our energy problems would be solved just by allowing oil drilling. The EPA bristles at the thought of us having enough energy because of its impact on Mother Nature. The “cannot” part of that sentence is because there are people in the US who would be warm regardless of the EPA policies. They are OK with regular people like you and I, no longer being warm as long as Mother Nature is happy. Most of these people are part of the EPA, and the others are big rich Democrats who know their tax policies will not cost them.
The EPA abhors fossil fuels. They like the so-called renewable fuels, such as solar, geothermal, and of course, their onetime fav, Ethanol. This inefficient fuel is mixed with gasoline at a 10% level. The EPA does not send out email blasts, however, to notify the American customer that they are being cheated at the gas pump as Ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasoline. In other words, you need more of it to go each mile.
Moreover, Ethanol is made mostly from our corn crop. So, this little trick by the EPA hurts us in automobile efficiency and it hurts us by increasing pressure on food prices. With all the farmers bustling to get on the Ethanol bandwagon, 40% of US corn is now burned in automobiles. With people starving across the world, we simply should not be burning food.
Permit me to offer a corollary to the notion that small town farmers are the culprits. Nope! It is the corporate farms who have figured out how to make a huge amount of dollars by sending their huge farm crops to the oil companies while the price of corn for Americans skyrockets. Why is the EPA in bed with the corporate farmers? Good question. The EPA is impure and Ethanol is less pure but the EPA, even though they now know their notion was wrong, insists that Ethanol is a good deal. Unfortunately, the dollar still rules even in large farm corporations. Which member of Congress will vote against the farmers? What if I said which member of Congress will vote against the blood sucking corporations that grow corn for Ethanol?
Respected scientists say global warming is a hoax!
But, Al Gore, who is quickly heading to be the first green billionaire, disagrees. No matter what the commoners, like Al Gore speculate, the scientists know better. The scientists that I read say that Global Warming is a hoax. More and more scientific evidence says it is a hoax. Even the EPA bypassed its own data to release their greenhouse gas warning. Why would they do that if their warning were accurate?
In the last several years we have all seen the documentation about the dishonesty from the mainstream environmentalists trying to scare us all into dying early so they can save Mother Nature. There were forged emails, and even raw data was manipulated (and then lost) to fit the testing constraints. Some data was fabricated from thin air to hit on target with the premise that the earth was in peril and the EPA had the only solution. Hogwash! This is a hoax perpetrated by environmental zealots who want it to be so. But, despite their best wishes, it is not so.
On the far-out side, I think it will be a long time before we see the zealots one day trying to make human sacrifices to Mother Nature. That is good. On the contrary, when we examine the callous disregard for the thousands of children across the world, dying of malaria and other preventable diseases each day, we can easily conclude that the human sacrifices have already begun.
Evidence has been continually mounting against the notion that global warming is real. So, faced with an eternity of not understanding simple thermometer logic, the environmentalists, including our beloved EPA, decided to fight the truth, rather than switch their basic thinking.
They had been defeated and proven to be corrupt cheats in the environment game, though Al Gore, getting richer every day, continually vouched that the data was right. They could not find real proof but their zeal for Mother Nature caused them to continue their cause when they should have packed it up and left town. But, what would they do for a living. So, they had no choice but to keep the myths alive.
To help them out once the term, “global warming,” fell into disrepute, they changed the name of the war to “climate change.” It makes me want to laugh out loud! This literally means if it is cold, it is caused by “climate change” and if it is warm it is caused by “climate change.” Climate change is their new villain. They don’t really want to comment on the notion of the four seasons as that is “weather change,” but they also do not want to prove climate change to be able to declare that the climate is changing. Their ideology cannot exist unless they purport the preposterous to be true. And, so they do.
I urge you to not let them win the semantics battle. Let us keep using the term, “global warming.” The semantic and the real battle continue on the Internet as mankind tackles the ever present fraud in the global warmer mentality. ”Tonyhubble” netted it out perfectly when he said, “It [the rename] means that they cannot be proven wrong, regardless of what actually occurs.” Amen! And, that is their goal. So, why do we need the EPA? Why should we pay them $10.5 Billion per year to exist and torment us?
Here we are in 2012, and no matter how hard the laughter comes, nobody on the eco side has admitted that the thesis was incorrect in the first place. Besides, zeal there is funding and of course, the very jobs of the EPA proponents are at stake. Funding would stop if they told the truth. Good environmentalists, even those “fine” people in the EPA, would be forced to discover another hoax if funding stopped.
So, let’s stop the EPA funding!
What a great idea!