BACK TO "THE DAILY ACCOUNT" CURRENT PAGE

BACK TO "POLITICAL NEWS ARTICLES"

The Most Dangerous Woman In America

The most dangerous woman in America is currently far more dangerous that Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg who recently said countries trying to establish democracies should not use the United States constitution as a guide.

The most dangerous woman in America is currently throwing thousands of Americans out of work, closing companies and inflicting financial damage on almost every single American in this country with impunity. The sad part is she is proud of her accomplishments.

Lisa JacksonThe head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Lisa Jackson who takes great pride in running her agency like the Gestapo. She is an extreme environmentalist who believes plants and animals take president over humans. Armed with 18,000 plus agents, an almost unlimited budget paid by you and policies unfounded in law, she terrorizes industry as well as individual citizens. She is currently getting away with this because the Obama administration is hell bent on radically changing America, as we knew it. Obama loves what she is doing and puts the full might of thug legal practices of the DOJ behind her.

She started with the EPA as a staff-level scientist in 1987 and spent the majority of her career working in EPA’s Region 2 office in New York. In 2002, Jackson joined the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and was appointed Commissioner of the agency in 2006. She claims that the EPA adheres to the rule of law and acts with unparalleled transparency. She has set the tone for how the agency conducts itself. You decide.

We will only look at a few examples of the handy work of Lisa Jackson and hear from her.

#1

American Petroleum Institute VS EPA

An oil and gas trade group filed a lawsuit recently challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel regulations, saying the rules are unachievable and amount to a stealth tax on the industry. The American Petroleum Institute has requested that the D.C. Circuit Court review the EPA’s rules for cellulosic biofuel, a renewable fuel source made out of plant material such as switch grass and woodchips. In a statement, API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco said the EPA’s mandate was “divorced from reality” and “forces refiners to purchase credits for cellulosic fuels that do not exist.”

The EPA’s renewable fuel standards were first passed in 2007 and require refiners to blend certain amounts ofAPI renewable fuel annually, including cellulosic biofuel. In 2010, the mandate for cellulosic fuel was 100 million gallons, rising to 250 million in 2011 and 500 million in 2012. However, there is no commercially available cellulosic fuel available in the United States. Refiners must buy a 78-cent waiver credit for every gallon under the target, amounting to approximately $6.8 million in penalties paid to the Treasury. In addition, that’s not counting the other costs of the mandate.

You read that correctly. API members must pay a fine to the EPA because little or no celluloic Biofuel exists. The EPA when confronted with these facts will not back down. The EPA has argued setting quotas keeps demand from slipping. So now, petroleum refiners must bare the cost of a court battle to explain the obvious to the EPA. This is absolute insanity.

#2

Sackett VS EPA

When Mike and Chantell Sackett paid $23,000 for a lot near the banks of Priest Lake in northern Idaho in 2005, they thought they were buying the site for a picturesque new home. They got a lot more: a long feud with the Environmental Protection Agency and now a Supreme Court case that could bolster the rights of landowners facing costly demands from the federal government.

Mike Sackett is an excavation contractor very familiar with codes and the permitting process. He obtained the correct permits from the local authorities and began the site work for his new house. The new house is in a neighborhood with other houses that had been there for years. Then three federal officials from the EPA showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act. The Sacketts say they were stunned.

The EPA also informed them they were subject to a $37,500 dollar per day fine. Let’s take a look at their story.

Again, we have a completely unnecessary costly and burdensome court process that has now gone on for four years.

#3

American Electric Power VS EPA

American Electric Power announced recently that the latest EPA regulations would cost the company at least $6 billion, which will be pushed on consumers. No one is sure how much the electric bills will go up, but it will be substantial. AEP ranks among the nation's largest generators of electricity, owning nearly 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. AEP says this will prompt closure of five coal-fired power plants and require costly changes at others create a direct loss of thousand jobs and significantly boost power costs for businesses.

The utility urged a delay in the compliance periods for the rules. EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing that AEP was using scare tactics. You guessed it; another lawsuit and court battle will be waged.

Let's meet Lisa Jackson and her Environmental Justice

#4

Midwest Independent System Operator VS EPA

Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) reports that newly proposed EPA rules could shut down 13,000 megawatts of coal fired power generation, boost prices, and threaten the reliability of the electric grid. The rules could force plants to spend billions to retrofit their plants or to replace them!

MISO operators may have to spend $33 billion to replace 62,000 megawatts out of the grid’s 70,000 megawattsCoal Power Plant of coal-fired plants.

Clair Moeller, vice president of transmission asset management says the EPA deadline of 2014-2015 is too short for MISO to make the necessary changes. “That is not enough time. It takes three or four years to retrofit or replace a power plant. We are worried about the nightmare of 62,000 MW going out at the same time.”

Yes more attorneys and legal battles ahead.

#5

Texas Takes Stand Against EPA

The Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Attorney General has written to EPA's Administrator, Lisa Jackson, telling her she is breaking the law. This fight is all about regulating greenhouse emissions (GHGs): Al Gore's global warming!!

The state of Texas, in a letter of August 2, 2010, declares "…we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

This dispute will affect agricultural operations either now or in the future. Texas is telling the Obama Administration's EPA it is violating the law. In the last year, EPA has decided to ignore Congress and has undertaken a program to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large sources throughout the country. EPA has issued at least five regulations. One regulation may already cover your agricultural operation, and that is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule of September, 2009. This rule requires operations emitting 25,000 metric tons of CO2 and CO2 equivalent per year to report the emission levels annually to EPA.

This reporting regulation will generally cover manure management systems. Some in the cattle industry believes the rule might require reporting from operations with no more than 180 head of beef cattle. EPA believes the rule covers cattle operations with 29,300 head or larger. Dairy operators have advised me the reporting rule would cover dairy operations of 4,000 head or larger.

Incensed over 'Tailoring Rule' Texas leaders are incensed because EPA is forcing Texas and all states to adopt a rule issued on June 3, 2010. This is the "Tailoring Rule". EPA is telling the states that they must, by August 2, 2011, agree to regulate greenhouse gases in the exact manner and regulations prescribed by EPA. Otherwise, EPA will take over a state's air permitting system to regulate new sources under what is called EPA's PSD and Title V regulations. This means EPA will require permitting of new stationary sources or major modifications if the source emits 75,000 tons per year of CO2.

By 2016, EPA will seek to regulate smaller sources, which means: Agriculture, look out. More job killing delay and regulation ahead.

The Attorney General's letter states it believes EPA is out of line. "…to encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings, you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

EPA, incredibly, is promulgating rules to regulate CO2 without going through lawful processes. Texas is saying it will not be a party to such unlawful acts. The EPA is fighting back against Texas. They are now saying, because of non-compliance, without even waiting for the courts to rule, they will take over regulating all greenhouse gases. Penalties and fines to follow.

The EPA forgot on this one they are in Texas. Texas will not go down easily. "God Bless Texas!"

#6

Shell Oil VS EPA

Yes, the EPA hates oil. Shell announced, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR.

Ice BreakerCompanies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars, (Shell has $4 Billion invested at this point) as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won’t be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA.

Not so fast. This 4-year project has hit a snag right before the permit to drill was issued. The EPA’s board has stated Shell didn’t take into account emissions from and ice-breaking vessel when it brings supplies to and from the drilling rig. The permits had never asked for this calculation therefore it wasn’t supplied. The EPA now says those emissions will put it at or near the allowable limit, therefore the permit will be denied.

Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. $4 billion down the drain. Do you think the price of gas just went up one or two cents? Thank the EPA.

The EPA is out of control. Lisa Jackson has the backing of the Department of Justice and this administration. Legal cost and millions of man-hours wasted by the EPA doesn’t matter. It’s just your tax dollars they are wasting. Lisa Jackson is not even questioned about her fanatical radicalism and what she is doing to business and individuals. It is Lisa Jackson's EPA that has arrogated to itself the power to regulate virtually all economic activity in the name of preventing climate change. She should have been fired years ago. It has turned into a war.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's Reaction To Report Of No Global Warming Since 1995  

These are only a small sample of the horrendous, appalling and unlawful behavior the EPA indulges in. Right now Lisa Jackson is the most dangerous woman in America. How does she sleep at night?

Written By; The Accountant

Bookmark this page
BlinkList Blogmarks Delicious Digg Diigo Facebook Fark Google Bookmarks Livejournal Ma.gnolia Netvouz Newsvine Reddit Spurl Stumbleupon Technorati Twitter Wists Yahoo My Web

RETURN TO "POLITICAL NEWS ARTICLES"

RETURN TO "THE DAILY ACCOUNT" CURRENT PAGE

Submit Your Article accountant@thedailyaccount.com

(Include A link to your website or blog)

 

 

tumblr analytics