The Obama Administration Outlaws New Coal-Fired Powerplants | RedState

"Whether it be in the form of directing you to purchase a product you don’t wish to buy, telling religious organizations what they have to allow, or making electricity unaffordable, the cancerous growth of regulations presents the greatest danger to our liberty. Until the Congress decides to man up and take back the power that it has relinquished we are on a death spiral as a free people. "

The Obama Administration Outlaws New Coal-Fired Powerplants | RedState

Articles: Why John Edwards Is the Perfect Democrat

By Stella Paul

Who would you rather have as vice president -- Sarah Palin or John Edwards?

Obama took a million bucks from renowned Palin-curser Bill ("the C-word") Maher, the only man in the world who makes Al Franken look couth.  And then Obama used those bucks to make a political ad...attacking Sarah Palin.

Why would Obama waste his precious filthy lucre attacking an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate?  Well, it sure distracted attention from the other failed veep contender who bobbed up in the news that week: "John Edwards Asks Judge Not to Destroy Sex Tape."
John Edwards is the perfect Democrat.  When you see him coming, you don't know which to lock up first: your wallet or your daughters.

Edwards, who reportedtly also pals around with prostitutes, is on trial for a brilliant trifecta of exploitation of women.  He seduced an old biddy into giving him campaign cash, which he gave to the airhead he was exploiting for sex, while cheating on the dying wife he exploited as a campaign prop.
Even by Democratic standards, this is sheer genius!

But he's a great respecter of women's rights, you know, just like the man who ran at the top of his ticket: John Kerry proudly stands up for the rights of women -- to buy him new yachts he can avoid paying taxes on.

Kerry was given his start in politics by Ted Kennedy, that legendary champion of women's rights.  Well, not their right to breathe.  Of course, we all know it was Mary Jo Kopechne's fault: she should have practiced exhaling underwater.

And speaking of Kennedy, the same week Edwards was wrangling over sex tapes, Mimi Alford was trying to get somebody to listen to her disgusting stories about John F. Kennedy.  Alford was a 19-year-old virgin when she went to work as President Kennedy's intern.  In short order, Kennedy deflowered her, pressured her into degrading sex acts with another man while he watched, and hustled her to raucous naked pool parties.

John Kennedy still glows behind the titanium hagiography that Democrats always construct for any president who manages a sufficient level of competence to not break the space-time continuum, which is why they never talk of Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson.

And so the minute that Alford's book came out, a panicky cry went out on publisher's row: "Get me ten more books of Jack and Jackie on the beach in Hyannis!"

Democrats love to accuse Republicans of "waging war on women," and to pose as women's champions.  In reality, Democrats attract an inordinate number of guttersnipes who in a healthier age were called "moral degenerates" for their ugly exploitation of women.

Line up, in your mind's eye, Bill (she's "trailer park trash") Clinton, Eliot ("Socks") Spitzer, Anthony ("Weiner") Weiner, Al ("sex-crazed poodle") Gore, and former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, who used his wife as a campaign prop while he chased men around truck stops and put his male crush poet in charge of the state's post-9/11 security.

And then there's George Soros, the puppet master and financier of the entire Democratic Party enterprise, who was just sued for slapping and choking his Brazilian trophy girlfriend.

Of course, nothing makes Democrats happier than humiliating women and making money at the same time -- and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of the TSA.

The Democrats' thuggishness towards women makes them natural partners for Muslims looking to spread some sharia around the good old USA.  Imagine how many rich women John Kerry can marry when polygamy is a go!

And that whole child marriage thing that's so beloved by Muslims should work out great for Roman ("not rape-rape") Polanski and the many Hollywood pals who petitioned for his freedom, like Woody ("Model Stepfather") Allen, Martin Scorsese, and John Landis. According to these stalwart Democrats, drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl is all in a day's work!

Sharia is a criminal racketeering system built on the subjugation of women, under the guise of a superior morality.  How could any self-respecting Democrat not love it?

Obama insisted on manipulating events to foment the ludicrous "Arab Spring," even as CBS correspondent Lara Logan was being gang-raped in Tahrir Square by crazed Islamists, screaming their ultimate aphrodisiac: "Jew! Jew!"

Sssshhhhh....Don't talk about that.  The Democrats are too busy celebrating their fantasy of "Arab democracy."  Who cares how many women get raped?

Now Obama is bypassing Congress to give $1.5 billion to the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he lifted to power in Egypt.  Foreign Affairs magazine informs us that as soon as Obama forced out Mubarak, soldiers began subjecting female protesters to electric shocks and beatings and forcibly instituting virginity checks.

But it's the Republicans waging war on women!  Yeah, right.  Just keep your eyes on the Democrats fighting against anti-sharia legislation here.  And don't give John Edwards any ideas about those virginity checks.
Write Stella Paul at Stellapundit@aol.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/why_john_edwards_is_the_perfect_democrat.html#ixzz1qJoKx5Vp

Supreme Court Tells EPA It’s Not Above the Law | The Gateway Pundit

By: Andrea Ryan

It’s a beautiful day when one of Obama’s evil Goliaths gets soundly spanked by the Supreme Court.  On Wednesday, the EPA’s egregious abuse, in the name of the Clean Water Act, was significantly reined in.  Obama’s Green Minions of Evil are still able to pound American citizens into submission with their brutal fists of extortion and intimidation, but no longer with complete impunity.
According to CNBC,

The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
Wednesday’s decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA’s argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution.
“Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia said. …
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they’re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws. …
Justice Samuel Alito called on Congress to clear up confusion over the reach of the Clean Water Act. Alito said that federal regulators could assert authority over any property that is wet for even part of the year, not just rivers and streams.
The court’s opinion “is better than nothing, but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem,” Alito said. …
In a statement, the Sacketts praised the court for “affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself.”

Let this be a powerful reminder of what’s at stake in November if Obama is reelected.  Justice Ginsburg has already announced her retirement in 2015.



Supreme Court Tells EPA It’s Not Above the Law | The Gateway Pundit

Obamacare: The reckoning - The Washington Post

Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.
Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.

Cost:
Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion to be exact.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.
Constitutionality:
Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.
Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.
Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.
Coerciveness.
Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.
Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:
(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.
(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?
(3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.
Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.
Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.
But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m.

Obamacare: The reckoning - The Washington Post

Global Warming and National Suicide - American Thinker

Beginning in 1856, the Xhosa tribe in today's South Africa destroyed its own economy.  They killed an estimated half-million of their own cattle (which they ordinarily treated with great care and respect), ceased planting crops, and destroyed their grain stores.  By the end of 1857, between thirty and fifty thousand Xhosa had starved to death -- a third to a half of the population.  The British herded survivors of the once-powerful tribe into labor camps, and white settlers took much of their land, as reported by Richard Landes in Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience.
The Xhosa had acted on the prophecy of a fifteen-year-old girl who promised that if they destroyed all they had and purified themselves of "witchcraft" (including evil inclinations and selfishness), the world before the white invaders came would be restored.  The British oppressors would flee, and the Xhosa ancestors would return, bringing with them an even greater abundance of cattle and grain.
Do you feel a mixture of pity and contempt for these strange people who ruined themselves on the basis of an outlandish vision?  If so, the feeling is misplaced.  Just as the basis for the Xhosa economy was cattle, the lifeblood of our economy is energy.  And we are strangling our own energy supply on the basis of an apocalyptic prophecy that has no more validity than the one that sent the Xhosa into self-immolation.
The apocalyptic vision to which we subscribe has a superficial scientific gloss -- "climate change" -- but at bottom, both visions prescribe economic suicide, and both promise that self-sacrifice will bring about a golden age.  In the case of the Xhosa, that golden age was the time before the British invaded.  In our own, to quote famed environmentalist David Brower (director of the Sierra Club and then of Friends of the Earth), it's "back there about a century when, at the start of the Industrial Revolution we began applying energy in vast amounts to tools with which we began tearing the environment apart."
Landes describes those who initiate and build support for these movements as roosters, for they crow an exciting new message, and their opponents as owls, those counseling caution and skepticism.  To drown out the warning owls, roosters must rally elites to their cause.  That is how the global warming movement made its inroads: with governments and a small cadre of activists taking the lead.  Once the authorities pronounce themselves in favor of the prophecy and it "pays" to believe, many more ordinary people will join in.  In the case of the Xhosa, the initial rooster was a simple orphan girl.  The key to the triumph of her vision was her uncle, a well-known preacher and diviner who preached her message and convinced the chiefs -- including the chief of chiefs, named Sarhili.
Apocalyptic movements are urgent.  It's now or never.  If action is not taken quickly, it will be too late.  Xhosa believers set about destroying their cattle and grain immediately.  United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (the global warming apocalypse owes more to the U.N. than to any other single institution) told the Global Environmental Forum in 2009, "We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet."  More generously, Prince Charles in March 2009 gave us "100 months to alter our behavior before we risk catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horror that this would bring."
However, as Landes points out, just because the apocalypse is wrong does not mean that its effects are not profound.  In the case of the Xhosa, the beneficiaries of the false apocalypse were the British -- the very people the Xhosa thought they were expelling through their sacrifice took over the lands the Xhosa could no longer cultivate.  China, which is heavily investing in the energy we spurn, is the most probable beneficiary of our folly.
How ironic it will be if, despite our pride in bringing down the Soviet Union without a shot, the twenty-first century, thanks to our self-destructive pursuit of an apocalyptic fantasy, belongs to a Communist dictatorship.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/global_warming_and_national_suicide.html#ixzz1pHwNiT5U

Global Warming and National Suicide

Obama Flashback: Dealing With High Gas Prices Is a Sacrifice I Expect Americans to Make (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Despite record gas prices Democrats repeatedly killed another Arctic drilling project this month. This came after Obama’s recent move to rejected the Keystone pipeline project. US gas prices at the pump have doubled since Obama took office.

Gas Buddy
But don’t look to President Obama for any sympathy.
He thinks it’s a sacrifice you should make.
Barack Obama told a group of numb Kool-Aid drinkers in 2008 that
“We have to make sure people are making good decisions about cars.” And dealing with high gas prices is a sacrifice I expect Americans to make.
Via Ace of Spades:

Obama Flashback: Dealing With High Gas Prices Is a Sacrifice I Expect Americans to Make (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Face It, He Hates You… Obama in 1990: We’re Going to Reshape ‘Mean-Spirited’ and Selfish America | The Gateway Pundit

Barack Obama 1990 Interview: Harvard student tackles racism at it’s core
Via Ironic Surrealism:

From his 1990 interview:

“There’s certainly racism here. There are certain burdens that are placed, more emotionally at this point than concretely,” Obama said.
“Professors may treat black students differently, sometimes by being, sort of, more dismissive, sometimes by being more, sort of, careful because they think, you know, they think that somehow we can’t cope in the classroom,” he said.
Obama sees the inner cities as the front lines of racism.
“It’s critical at this stage for people who want to see genuine change to focus locally. And it is crucial that we figure out how to rebuild the core of leadership and institutions in these communities,” he said.
For five years before law school, Obama took on that task in Chicago. As the director of a program that tried to bring South Side churches, unions and block associations together on projects, Obama was not trying to solve local problems, he said. Instead he sought to construct something more lasting — a forum for the community, “I’m interested in organizations, not movements, because movements dissipate and organizations don’t,” Obama said.
America suffered when the movements of the 1960s dissipated, he said. Those movements succeeded in raising doubts about harmful traditions of sexism and racism, but failed to offer a viable alternative.
“Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous,” Obama said.

Face It, He Hates You… Obama in 1990: We’re Going to Reshape ‘Mean-Spirited’ and Selfish America | The Gateway Pundit