It was reported late last week that the EPA has revoked a mountain mining permit that has been in effect for a number of years.Here are the facts: the permit [a section 4A permit] was approved by the EPA (under Bush 43) four years ago. It had been issued to Arch Coal. Arch Coal provides this nation with 16% of its coal supply.
Since the permit was issued, the company has spent a quarter of a billion dollars in the Spruce Mine No.1 operation, West Virginia.
As a result, the states two Democrat Senators, Jay Rockefeller and newly elected Joe Machin have filed passionate complaints with the Administration. We would add "to no avail" but we really do not know the outcome of this decision.
Rockerfeller's letter included these angry words: ""I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."
And Manchin had this to say, "According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules. Why? They just change the rules."
Understand that Obama has declared war on fossil fuels and he has done so two decades before we are ready to replace these traditional energy supplies with any number of alternative sources. It doesn't make any sense, does it? Unless, of course, he is about the accomplishment of that which is not yet obvious. Nuts? Me? Perhaps. But it is time for some of us to assume that we do not know as much about Obama as we think we do. Or, at least, we do not want to believe what is standing before us, in plain view, in the light of day. Its called "connecting the dots" and that is something we have not yet done. Knowing that he is going where we do not care to follow is not enough. His agenda is a full blown Progressive strategy and unless and until we admit to its manifestation, we are helpless to stop its implementation.
Consider our view of his strategy and stated purpose:
First, there is the matter of Obama's decision to continue his agenda in full throttle via the regulatory powers that have been made a part of the American presidency. He has the various Federal agencies at his beck and call. We have the EPA, FTC, HUD, FCC, FEMA, OSHA, HHS, DOE, DOJ, FDA, NASA, and more, all under the direct control of the president if the president so chooses. All Department heads are chosen by the President and approved by congressional review. It is Obama's intention to circumvent congress, using these agencies and departments with their regulatory powers to accomplish his will for this country in the aftermath of the popular rejection of his policies in the midterm elections. He has already entered into this "rule by regulatory fiat" in his use of the EPA as cited in the Arch Coal decision. Representatives in the House are quickly moving to investigate Obama's use of the EPA as he works to install what did not happen with the failure of Cap and Trade in the 111th Congress. He has enlisted the FTC and the FCC in efforts to establish the heart and soul of the Fairness Doctrine. HHS is the single most important Federal concern in the implementation and expansion of health care. OSHA, the EPA and the Department of Agriculture are being used to further the radical demands of the global warming crowd. Offshore drilling has been set back by years via an impossible permitting process and safety standards review. NASA has been virtually abandoned, its purposes exchanged for an activist partnership in a one world social and political economy. Examples abound, but we have made our point.
Secondly, we have this stated purpose presented in October of 2008 -- "We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. " Those who applauded and cheered that statement had no idea what he had in mind. He has never defined "fundamental transformation" and, strangely, we have never asked him to do so. We must believe that he attaches a very well defined meaning to those words. If "transformation" is defined as a " move from one state of being to a very different state of being," his intentions for this country are both radical and systemic. We are talking about an existential shift away from the traditions and political theories that have defined this country and provided for its greatness. If not, "fundamental transformation" is nothing more than poorly chosen political rhetoric. If Bill Clinton had used these words, "poorly chosen political rhetoric" would be the correct conclusion. Obama is not Bill Clinton and we have two years and an huge electoral butt kicking to help define the differences between the two liberal Democrat leaders. After Clinton's Democrat congress was kicked out of D.C., he moved to the middle and conducted his agenda as a bipartisan. Obama has already indicated that he has no intentions of using the Clintonian tactic. Of course, he will make a public show of being bipartisan [to a degree] - that will be his path to re-election. But his plans for a presidential rule via regulatory fiat are well under way. When it is all said and done, Obama has it in his mind to fundamentally transform this country in the truest sense of that term.
Perhaps these words from Michelle Obama, spoken in May of 2008, fit into the conversation at this point: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." Don't we know that Obama and Michelle have had more than one night together in quiet time conversation about their hopes and dreams for a New United States of America? Don't think Michelle is around and involved? Think about that Food Safety bill recently passed into law. It was her idea. She is all over children's televised programing, gaining recognition at that level and building influence with their parents.
Third, there is the fantasy that his agenda has come to a "screeching halt." Sean Hannity [we like and respect Sean] often celebrates this belief. What if it is not true? Judging from the above, such is only wishful thinking. Obama's remarkable and historic defeat in November of 2010 has only provided him the demand to double down on his use of regulations. He does not care about public opinion. We know this. He does not allow the threat of a "single term" to override his plans for this nation. He knows full well that his time in office is limited and he intends to establish the end game of a progressive agenda initiated by Woodrow Wilson before that end comes to his time in office.
Think about it. Now that he has lost his legislative front line of attack, there is no indication that he plans on being a lame duck president. Not at all. He has established the largest presidential staff in the history of this country; 50 "czars" all protected from subpoena power, all working under the shield of "executive privilege." If Obama does not want folks to know what any of these individuals are doing, they are wholly protected from investigation. This privilege means that congress does not have the power or the ability to know anything the president is doing, except for the power of impeachment. He has the power of executive order, using it this past week to set up a commission to review the use of regulatory powers at his disposal to accomplish governmental goal. Then there is the "recess appointment." The president can appoint anyone to any position, during those periods of time when congress is on recess. The appointments are good for a year. At the end of the year, the president can appoint another individual for an additional year. Finally [for the sake of this post], Obama can use a thing called a signing statement to state his interpretation new legislation and declare his intentions to refuse to enforce any particular bill he is about to sign into law.
What limits the president? What works against his efforts?
The courts, for one thing. There have already been several decisions that work against Obama's efforts. Citizens United is one case that comes to mind and a D.C. appeals court decision against the FCC/FTC is another. Secondly, there is the little matter of money. While Obama can move dollars from one program to another, he cannot secure new spending without the approval of the House of Representatives, and it is the House that is firmly in the grips of the GOP. Third, there is the investigative power of the House. There is actually a committee in the House of Representatives charged with the review and investigation of the Executive Branch . . . . . . . and that committee is as prepared for the next two years and is Mr. Obama.
Point of post: to make it clear that the Arch Coal EPA decision is the very tip of the Progressive strategy of this president. Understand that Barack Obama is not a politician. All that experience we say he did not have; we are talking about legislative and practical experience? We were correct in that summation. But that is not the end of the matter. Not even close.
Barack Obama is a Black Progress as defined by Black Liberation Theology (trust me on this one) with 25 years of experience as a community organizer and Progressivw/redistributive activist. He has spent all of his adult political life [community activism is "political function"] thinking of ways to manipulate "the system" to accomplish the purposes he has in mind for the people he represents. We have never had a president who has come to us as a political and professional activist. Political activism was his job. Vocation and avocation are combined in Obama's radical political theory. He is to be feared precisely because of the experience he has brought to the presidency. We don't like the man because he knows how to get the job done.
Never forget that 2009/2010 were not so much about progressive/radical legislation as they were about preparing to drive that legislative agenda through 2011/2012 -- without benefit of a Democrat controlled congress. He used his first two years as president to set in place those people, hundreds of them, who are as radical and committed to a socialism defined by distributive justice as he is. He is one of many. Because of him, they all have the power and the opportunity they have longed for since their university days. For the most part, they are second generation Baby Boomers. That "first generation" did not know how to get the job done. This bunch understands the strategies, demands and sacrifices that must be made. They understand that their time is limited. They understand that 20 or 30 or 50 years from now, a third or fourth generation of progressives will rise to power and build [effectively] upon the accomplishments of the 111th / 112th Progressives.
Our job is to tear this socialist monolith apart. If we are not successful, it will become the cornerstone to a new world order and the American experiment will have died an untimely death.
J Smithson
m
No comments:
Post a Comment