Thank you for visiting StopEPA.com to learn about the devastating impact the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulations would have on the economy. Thanks to your help, 14,461 people used this website to express their dissent to the EPA about the invasive new energy tax on businesses and individuals.

The period to submit comments to the EPA is now over, but you can find more information about the regulations in the following research papers:

• The True Costs of EPA Global Warming Regulation
• EPA-Mandated CO2 Reductions Will Lower U.S. Industries' Return on Equity
• Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?
• CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of the EPA's ANPR Regulations
• EPA Should Not Ignore Congress on Global Warming Restrictions
• A Glorious Mess: EPA Notice Would Have Dramatic Impact on U.S. Military

No administration can guarantee it will stop every attack. But if our nation assumes the offensive, the U.S. can take the initiative away from terrorists.

Here’s the rationale behind their brainwashing our young ‘uns: A lot of thinking adults (as in the multiple millions) think that the greenies are pretty much off their rocker. Since the greenies can’t have us arrested (yet), they have decided to get their agenda going via our children, primarily through the agency of the public school system.

Yep, if they can get little kids who still eat their boogers to believe in their boogie man then they will morph into half-pint climate nags who will be an emotional guilt tripping Disney-fueled pain in the butt to the parents who are destroying the earth by not using low flow toilets.

Our kids are being hammered with green hysteria from K through 12. Yep, on a regular basis they are spoon fed apocalyptic children’s books meant to scare the crap out of them and paint the F-150 father as a bad, bad man. In addition, many schools force the kids to view chunky butt, hypocrite extraordinaire Al Gore’s daft film and do chants and life pledges to save the earth. The global warmers are serious as a heart attack about making our children “Inconvenient Youths, veritable eco-warriors who will go after their parents for environmental offenses.”

To help you help yourself and yours steer clear from these terra firma fascists, NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner has penned a new book that is must for those who do not wish to be gang tackled by the green gang. In Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how the greenies are about to go into overdrive, forcing new legislation, killing our weak economy, squelching our freedoms, and quashing all dissenting opinion about the causes and effects of climate change.

He has a particularly freaky chapter on how the greenies are gunning for our children, indoctrinating them to the extent that they blame their own parents for the “warming globe.” This heavily footnoted book body slams the global warming alarmists and their junk science. Get one for yourself and your kids and become a “climate criminal” with me!

All of which reminded me of the unhinged Left’s protests in late 2004 before the Bush inaugural. He was bashed for continuing the American tradition in a time of war and for holding parties so soon after the southeast Asian tsunami disaster.

Remember?

With an estimated 1.5 million people expected to descend on Washington for the Obama festivities and a federal tax bill alone of at least $50 million, next January’s inauguration will dwarf Bush’s inaugural events and expenses. We are still at war. And, as the Democrats remind us, economic times are tough and average Americans are hurting.

Will Democrat Rep. Weiner demand that Obama go the “cold chicken salad and plain pound cake” route and redirect all the money Obama’s Chicago team is raising to the troops, too? Or has he stopped caring about the brave men and women he exploited in 2005 to score Bush-bashing points with the nutroots?

Will billionaire Mark Cuban, who demanded that Bush donate his inauguration funds to Indonesian tsunami victims, call on Obama to fork over the inaugural funds to victims of the Mumbai terrorist bombings or to distressed American homeowners under water on their mortgages?

Where are all the anti-Inauguration critics now?

Just wondering.

Early in what became the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes was asked if anything similar had ever happened. "Yes," he replied,...

Read Full Article

It did take 25 years, until November 1954, for the Dow to return to the peak it reached in September 1929. So caution is sensible concerning calls for a new New Deal. The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression.

Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long. But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal.

In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending — President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50% between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt — unemployment was 17.2%.

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," lamented Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary. Unemployment declined when America began selling materials to nations engaged in a war America would soon join.

Has America learned a lesson about consumption?

All of this begins with the artificial escalation of home values that began in the 1990s.  Without those increases far outstripping inflation, consumers would not have had the equity to leverage for more spending.  They would not have created a demand for even more debt, which fed on itself in a vicious cycle as government policies created profit on almost any kind of mortgage for short-term lenders.

The entire precipice was built on sand, and it’s now turning into quicksand.  For some, the lesson will come too late.  For the rest of us, it’s a lesson we need to learn for good.  Many of us have heard the advice our parents and grandparents learned in hard economic times: Don’t spend beyond your means.  Many in the previous couple of generations had a well-deserved skepticism about credit, and they’ve been proven right yet again.

While we’re at it, Congress could use an instruction or two in income-based spending, rather than asset-based spending.  We’ve been mortgaging the next several generations in order to pay for our own pet programs for the last several decades.  Maybe it’s time to stop doing that as well.

Good news: Chris Matthews hiring campaign staff for Senate run in Pennsylvania

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution - "CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT (Popular Technology)

Scientists urge caution on global warming - Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.

So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.

“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”

The global cooling lobby’s challenge is enormous. Next year could be the unfriendliest yet for climate skeptics. Already, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) has lost his gavel, in part because his peers felt he was less than serious about tackling global warming.  (Politico)

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas  - This is not what President-elect Barack Obama's energy and climate strategists would want to hear. It would be anathema to Al Gore and other assorted luminaries touting renewable energy sources which in one giant swoop will save the world from the “tyranny” of fossil fuels and mitigate global warming. And as if these were not big enough issues, oilman T. Boone Pickens’ grandiose plan for wind farms from Texas to Canada is supposed to bring about a replacement for the natural gas now used for power generation. That move will then lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse.

Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture. (Peter Glover and Michael J. Economides, Energy Tribune)

This week, a single egg is said to raise our risks for diabetes… not - By this evening, nearly 200 news stories have reported that a new Harvard study had found eggs raise risks for developing type 2 diabetes. Medical professionals could even earn continuing medical education credits by reading a MedPage Today article teaching that men eating seven or more eggs a week “were 58% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who did not eat eggs, and women were 77% more likely to become diabetic if they ate at least an egg a day.” As the story made its way around the world, it became increasingly embellished, just like that game of telephone you may remember from childhood.