Environmental Fascism and The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

Today is the fourth and final day of hearings being held this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Obama Regime officials and members of Congress are debating the discussion draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (see "Documents" below). More Leftist lunacy on the environment. Is the Obama Regime really concerned for the environment? Or is it just another play in the Left's power grab game? Keep in mind that this "global warming" madness continues in spite of the fact that temperature monitors report widescale global cooling. One thing is certain: The Left's environmental fear mongering is NOT about science. If it was, they would not insist, as they do, that more research is unnecessary. If the Left - and Democrat leaders in Congress - were truly interested in objective science, they would not refuse to allow dissenting voices to testify. They've just done this, in the case of a dissenting British environmental expert: A former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says he has been uninvited to appear before a House Energy and Commerce hearing today on global warming. Lord Christopher Monckton told "Climate Depot" that committee Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance with former Vice President Al Gore because, according to him, they don't want "Gore humiliated" over evidence or lack of evidence about global warming. Full Article at MyStateline.com... “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton said. (Source: Canada Free Press) Does that sound to you like an objective interest in science and facts, or more like pure politics? The Rocky Mountain Collegian wrote an idiotic column on April 22 that parrots the talking points of the Democrat environmental opportunists. An excerpt (emphasis added): Here is my challenge to skeptics. The findings are now in a 60-day public comment period before they are made official. If you can debunk the theory of global warming, contact the EPA within the next 60 days and do so. If, however, you cannot, allow the rest of us to continue the debate on how best to mitigate the threat of global warming so we can begin what we should have been doing five years ago. To the writer/s of that idiotic passage: Are you aware of the fact that Democrats and their environmentalist whacko allies have been doing backflips to prevent "the rest of us to continue the debate on how best to mitigate the threat of global warming?" Or is your column just another way of telling dissenters, such as Lord Christopher Monckton, to shut up? GetLiberty.org reports: Just this past Friday [April 17], the EPA classified the supposed side-effects of “man-made” climate change, including smog, heat waves, and storms, as a danger to "public health and welfare.” Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the Massachusetts v. EPA case—a clear case of judicial activism based on yet more junk science that defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant—the EPA can now regulate carbon-emitting facilities and industries. The hypocrisy and the idiocy of the court's ruling is this: Every one of the justices on that court expell several pounds of carbon dioxide every day as they breath. They get to and from the court by automobile. Their homes are heated and cooled with electricity. Any pets they have produce carbon dioxide, too. Oh yes, and if they or their pets are overweight, then that's another offense: "And the EPA is no doubt more than eager to oblige," writes GetLiberty, "After all, its comrades on the environmental fringe just defined fat people as a threat to mankind’s survival." (Say, isn't Al Gore kinda plump?) The Left and its environmentalist radical allies, along with the Obama Regime, are fear mongering for the sake of attaining more control over industry and individual behavior, and to achieve political points internationally in their global attempt to stunt the growth of industry. Mondaq.com's Kevin Holewinski wrote an excellent summary of Massachusetts v. EPA, in which he struck at the core motivation behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (emphasis added): ... as a number of commenters have already suggested, the expected endangerment finding will be used as leverage by the Obama administration as it gets ready for international negotiations in December 2009 in Copenhagen. It will presumably allow the administration to show the United States' unequivocal commitment to addressing climate change at the time that it seeks to persuade China, and other countries, of the need to do the same—without the necessity of having a comprehensive federal cap-and-trade piece of legislation passed. Given early reaction to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, cosponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D. Calif.) and Ed Markey (D. Mass.), by Senator Durbin (D. Ill.) (and others) as to whether that proposal can ever become law, EPA's endangerment finding might be all the President has to use as leverage. You'll hear Democrats such as Henry Waxman (D-Calif) tell the lie that this package of environmental legislation will "create millions of jobs." But, as pointed out by The New American, "if we listen carefully, we find that even members of the Obama administration have admitted that cap-and-trade plans will impact the economy: the government has already made plans to 'help' (at taxpayer expense) those who might suffer because of them." As I said, this is not about the environment. It's all about control. DOCUMENTS (PDFs): American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Full Text American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Summary American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft Section by Section Summary RELATED ARTICLES: Waxman-Markey Bill Is Most Anti-Consumer Legislation Ever ... Trillions at Stake in House Climate Change Bill Portrait of a Coward (Al Gore) Green Jobs or Gangrene? Climate change law would cost you $3000 a year, Pence says Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside ... 10 Questions for Al Gore Dissenter on Climate Change Takes Fight to the Web - NYTimes.com Scientists Increasingly Dissent With Global Warming Proponents ... 32000 Scientists Dissent From Global Warming “Consensus ... CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!