The Sunday Funny Papers

Splinters in Her Crotch!

A woman from Los Angeles who was a tree  Hugger, a liberal Democrat, and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of  Timberland near Colville, WA. There was a large tree on one of the  highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of the natural  splendor of her land; so, she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top, she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a  Local ER to see a doctor.

She told him she was an environmentalist, a democrat, and an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters. The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to wait In the examining room and he would see if he could help her.  She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared. The angry woman demanded, “What took you so long?” He smiled and told her,  “Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency,  The Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a “recreational area” so close to a  waste treatment facility. I’m sorry, but due to ObamaCare, they turned me down.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

~Steve~                               H/T   May

Obama’s Bait and Switch Manuever

Obama halts controversial EPA regulation

Sep 2 03:35 PM
US/Eastern
By JULIE PACE and DINA  CAPPIELLO
Associated Press

// WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped
his administration’s controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the
demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency—and the unanimous opinion
of its independent panel of scientific advisers—and directed administrator Lisa
Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of
ground-level ozone, smog’s main ingredient. The decision rests in part on
reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant
uncertainty about an unsteady economy.

// The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector
employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month—and
that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.

The withdrawal of the proposed regulation marks the latest in a string of
retreats by Obama in the face of Republican opposition. Last December, he
shelved, at least until the end of 2012, his insistence that Bush-era tax cuts
should no longer apply to the wealthy. Earlier this year he avoided a government
shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands for budget
cuts. And this summer he acceded to more than a $1 trillion in spending
reductions, with more to come, as the price for an agreement to raise the
nation’s debt ceiling.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.

“But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington
Democrats’ agenda of tax hikes, more government `stimulus’ spending, and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

Obama had initially set out to correct a weaker standard set by President
George W. Bush. Jackson had said in July that the standard would not survive
a legal challenge because it did not follow the recommendations of the agency’s
scientific advisers.

In March, the independent panel said in a letter to Jackson that it was
unanimous in its recommendation to make the smog standard stronger and that the evidence was “sufficiently certain” that a range proposed in January 2010 under Obama would benefit public health.

The White House, which has pledged to base decisions on science, said Friday
that the science behind its initial decision needed to be updated, and a new
standard would be issued in 2013.

Major industry groups had lobbied hard for the White House to abandon the
smog regulation, and applauded Friday’s decision.

“The president’s decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking
for work. EPA’s proposal would have prevented the very job
creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority,” said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White
House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business
at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost
anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would
be.

However, the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to consider how much it will cost to comply when picking a new standard.

Republican lawmakers have blamed what they see as excessive regulations
backed by the Obama administration for some of the country’s economic woes, and House Republicans pledged this week to try to block four environmental
regulations, including the one on some pollution standards, when they return
after Labor Day.

But perhaps more than some of the other regulations under attack, the
ground-level ozone standard is most closely associated with public
health—something the president said he wouldn’t compromise in his regulatory
review. Ozone is the main ingredient in smog, which is a powerful lung irritant
that occasionally forces cancellation of school recesses, and causes asthma and
other lung ailments.

A stronger standard, while it would cost billions, would also save billions
in avoided health care costs and hospital visits.

Criticism from environmentalists, a core Obama constituency already battling
him over a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast, was swift following the White House announcement.

“The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of
protecting the air we breathe,” said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League
of Conservation Voters. “This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health.”

In his statement, the president said that withdrawing the regulation did not
reflect a weakening of his commitment to protecting public health and the
environment.

“I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as
they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families
from harmful pollution,” he said.

The decision mirrors one made by Obama’s predecessor, President George W.
Bush. EPA scientists had recommended a stricter standard to better protect
public health. Bush personally intervened after hearing complaints from electric
utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per
billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997, but not as strong as federal
scientists said was needed to protect public health.

The EPA under Obama proposed in January 2010 a range for the concentration of ground-level ozone allowed in the air—from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. That’s about equal to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-size swimming pool full of tennis balls.

Jackson, Obama’s environmental chief, said at the time that “using the best
science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help
millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”

The American Lung Association, which sued the EPA over the Bush standard, said it would continue its legal fight now that Obama is essentially endorsing the weaker limit. The group had suspended its lawsuit after the Obama administration vowed to correct it.

Don’t be deceived, this is nothing more than a calculated political manuever to try to attract moderates and independents back to Obama, who have been abandoning him in droves. This has nothing to do with creating job and has everything to do with stoking Obama’s giant ego, and with his poll numbers falling faster and faster, he has to  give the illusion that he is moving to the right. His willing accomplices in the MSM will play it up to its fullest advantage.

Tom in NC

EPA war on coal plants threatens air conditioning — and public health

Nobody touchs my A/C

This is a public safety message. Do Not, and I mean Do Not Mess with my A/C. I will not be responsible for my actions. Pretty sure the Defense would hold up Too. ~ Steve~

 

Does “EPA” really stand for the Environmental Projection Agency?

In a surprising, off-agenda article today, the New York Times reports that the EPA jihad against coal-fired electricity threatens the availability of air conditioning during heat waves.

The Times reports,

As 58 million people across 13 states sweated through the third day of a heat wave last month, power demand in North America’s largest regional grid jurisdiction hit a record high. And yet there was no shortage, no rolling blackout and no brownout in an area that stretches from Maryland to Chicago.

But that may not be the case in the future as stricter air quality rules are put in place. Eastern utilities satisfied demand that day — July 21 — with hefty output from dozens of 1950s and 1960s coal-burning power plants that dump prodigious amounts of acid gases, soot, mercury and arsenic into the air. Because of new Environmental Protection Agency rules, and some yet to be written, many of those plants are expected to close in coming years.

While the “dump prodigious amounts of acid gases, soot, mercury and arsenic into the air” is pure exaggeration (e.g., U.S. coal fired-power plants are responsible for only about 0.5% of global mercury emissions which is 99+% less than Mother Nature emits), the article’s basic point is not.

Moreover, as the real threat to public health during heat waves is the lack of air conditioning (as opposed to air quality), it is the EPA that threatens public health, not coal-fired plants. As reported by USA Today in September 2003,

The death toll in France from August’s blistering heat wave has reached nearly 15,000, according to a government-commissioned report released Thursday, surpassing a prior tally by more than 3,000… The bulk of the victims — many of them elderly — died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare.

For rest of story Pls Go HERE!!!

~Steve~

 

A Real Life John Galt

‘Right Out of Atlas Shrugged’:

Hear an Exasperated Alabama Businessman Tell the Feds – ‘I’m Just Quitting’

• Posted on July 26, 2011 at 8:50am by Dave Urbanski

Ronnie Bryant was vastly outnumbered.

Leaning against a wall during a recent Birmingham, Alabama, public hearing, Bryant listened to an overflow crowd pepper federal officials with concerns about businesses polluting the drinking water and causing cases of cancer.

After two hours, Bryant—a coal mine owner from Jasper—had heard enough and, in a moment being described as “right out of Atlas Shrugged,” took his turn at the microphone:

“Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.”

The Blaze contacted Bryant, and he remains as resolute as he was at last week’s public hearing. To him, it’s just not worth the time, money, and regulatory hassle to open up a new mine—even one located in a remote area with less environmental impact.

“If they want to create jobs, provide health insurance, and increase revenue,” Bryant said in reference to the federal government, “they need to back down on the regulatory burden. It’s like pulling an iron ball with a chain. I’m not saying to make it go away—just the stuff that’s not pertinent or useful.”

Terry Douglas, who owns two mines in Jasper with Bryant, said it costs them about $250,000 per mine in permit fees alone and that paperwork and regulatory inspections are a constant presence (as well as an additional revenue strain). When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.

“We take care of our equipment and take care of our people,” Douglas said. “The regulations make coal miners out to be criminals; but we’re not outlaws. Coal mining is an art. I have a civil engineering degree; Ronnie has a mining engineering degree. It’s not wildcat whiskey we’re making; this is drinking whiskey we got.”

Bryant pointed to less stringent environmental regulations in countries such as China, saying that the U.S. is falling behind even though it has abundant resources. “But you can’t get to them,” he said, adding that while there are concerns over dwindling wildlife populations, “people are becoming the endangered species.”

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, regional administrator for EPA’s Southeast Region, attended the Birmingham public hearing but could not be reached for comment.

Radical environmentalism, liberalism and over regulation is killing entrepreneurship in this country. Why should a businessman have to feel like he is going through the equivalent of a public lynching just to bring jobs to people.

The EPA should be immediately defunded and abolished, it is the biggest job killer in this country(outside of Obama).

Tom in NC

H/T The Blaze