Our politicians have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and now they have become the enemy. What will it take? Another armed conflict? No wonder liberals are for gun control!

FedUpEditor

As you might recall, in 2008 EPA set an ozone standard of 75 ppb (parts per billion). Federal guidelines require EPA to revisit the ozone standard every five years, but last year EPA initiated a reconsideration of that standard and proposed tightening it to 70 to 60 ppb. In places where naturally occurring ozone levels can exceed the standard, including Yellowstone National Park, EPA can’t explain how to meet the new requirements.

A new study by NERA Economic Consulting shows the EPA’s health benefit assumptions are greatly exaggerated:

• EPA’s assumed causal relationship between ozone and mortality has not been supported by EPA’s science advisors;
• The health benefits EPA attributes to the tighter ozone standard should are due to a slight reduction in particulate matter (dust), which already is regulated separately by EPA; and
• The EPA’s own data show that the benefits of the proposed ozone standard will not outweigh the costs.

A study by Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that strengthening the ozone standard to 60 ppb could cost the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion per year between 2020 and 2030, and destroy 7.3 million jobs.

Air quality has and will continue to improve as the nation works to meet the existing standards. There is no reason to change the standards now.

- API

Mr. Obama’s “new” proposal is obviously being offered as Plan B, since his cap-and-trade proposal failed in the Congress. He obviously hopes to lure some befuddled House Republican votes to pass it. The President is not “moving to the middle.” Instead he is playing bait-and-switch. Either cap-and-trade or “clean energy” would cause chaos in the American economy. Remember his desperate efforts to pass Obama-care, complete with the payoffs to key Senators?  He is rigidly persistent!
 
Now it gets even worse. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon just announced that he will quit pushing for an international agreement to ban fossil fuels. Guess what now rates as worthy of his efforts instead:  a “clean energy initiative”! Ban says this is necessary to reduce climate risks, cut poverty, and improve global health. Does anybody think he means substituting kerosene stoves in Bangladeshi huts to prevent the lung diseases women get from burning wood and dung in open cook-fires? 

The left has decided that global warming is no longer an effective rallying cry.

The year 2012 is the time to make serious changes to the way business is being done in Washington, DC. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are most of the problem with the Republican Party.

By introducing unconstitutional legislation, McCain and Graham have moved the party to the “center” by compromising with liberals. Time for a change.

JD Hayworth is going to challenge McCain this year. Let’s hope he wins. The reason we know McCain is scared is because he is moving away from positions he took previously, even with his OWN legislation! Amnesty, Stimulus, etc. the list goes on. Once McCain gets re-elected, he will move back to the left and be what he normally is… a RINO!

This is the year for REAL hope and change!

“It seems that owning a Volt is an expensive way to be green,” the magazine says after its first few days with the Volt. In cold weather, battery-only mileage was low enough and the Volt’s electric heater weak enough to make reviewers think twice about whether the Volt is worth its $41,000 suggested starting price tag, less tax credits and plus any dealer markup, such as the $5,000 extra Consumer Reports paid.

The magazine’s team got between 23 and 28 miles in battery-only range because of the cold weather. (General Motors says the Volt can go 25 to 50 miles on its battery.) After that, the gasoline generator got about 30 m.p.g., compared to the Environmental Protection Agency rating of 37 m.p.g.

All in all, Consumer Reports figured the Volt would cost about 5.7 cents per mile to run in battery mode and 10 cents per mile using the gas generator, assuming gas is only $3 a gallon. The magazine says the Toyota Prius hybrid costs 6.8 cents per mile to operate, and a 2011 model costs only about $25,000.

The magazine promised it would still conduct a full road test of the Volt, whose awards have included North American Car of the Year and Motor Trend Car of the Year. It also wrote up a couple-week trial of the Nissan Leaf pure electric car, which it said had a better heater than the Volt. Still, the cold made Consumer Reports’ Leaf average about 65 miles of battery range, compared with the Leaf’s 70-mile EPA rating and the up to 100 miles Nissan says some drivers will get on one charge.

“Our initial take is that the Leaf is a fun urban car that works best as a second or third vehicle in a temperate climate,” the magazine said.

The Leaf does not have a built-in generator like the Volt’s, and its pricing starts at $32,780, less tax credits.

Contact Chrissie Thompson: 313-222-8784 or cthompson@freepress.com

Vote to return the same group of people back into office… the ones who got us here in the first place. Jerry Brown should be saying, “Fooled you once, shame on me. Fooled you twice shame on you. Fooled you three times… what are you, stupid?”

After all, the man has failed as Governor, as Mayor of Oakland and now as Attorney General. In his latest role, responsible for enforcing immigration laws, he slams Meg Whitman for having an illegal alien work for her. Huh? Whose fault is that? Now he’s Governor again? Stupid is as stupid does.

Don’t be surprised if we see unemployment skyrocket as our state sinks deeper into debt. But we deserve it for re-electing the same fools who brought us to this place. The rest of the country got the message. It’s a shame California no longer leads the way.

FedUpEditor

“The decision today by the Senate leadership to shelve flawed spill legislation is a good one. The bill proposed by the Democratic leadership is not an effective or reasoned response to the spill. Instead it will cost American jobs, threaten our fragile economic recovery and jeopardize our energy security.

“Among the legislation’s shortcoming is the elimination of the cap on oil spill liability. Unlimited liability for spill damages would force most oil and natural gas companies out of the Gulf of Mexico because they would be unable to purchase insurance. This would put thousands of American jobs at risk and reduce the energy supplies we get from the Gulf.

“A robust, workable oil spill liability program – possibly including a mutual insurance element – is achievable and would cover the cost of a large spill without shifting huge costs to taxpayers.

“The bill falls short again in seeking to impose a new layer of federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. This technology is essential to developing America’s vast reserves of shale gas, and states already do a good job regulating its use. Superfluous federal legislation would slow development of these vital domestic supplies of clean-burning energy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs associated its development.

“We strongly believe a bill is possible that could enhance offshore safety and ensure payment of damages from possible future accidents without discouraging job creation or domestic energy development. We stand ready to work with the Senate towards this goal.”