Nationalizing Banks, Health Care & Police : Now It's Energy - Who Knew?

Let's see, who and why did the voters take it upon themselves to willingly accept subsistence as a way of life, but that's exactly what they did when they voted twice for "fundamental change" to our Constitution by executive order, or in this case by the EPA, by criminal self serving ideological actions designed to control all aspects in our lives. That the EPA doesn't have the legal right to do this is of no consequence.

Along with the banks, health care, our energy industry and now the police, one has to wonder if all those that voted for the progressive socialist liberal democrats see the error of their ways. I believe there is no scenario of hardship or corruption, occurring in our government that is controlled by progressive democrats, that would convince the democrat voter something is amiss.

For a life long democrat voter to vote for the other side or stay home is out of the question. Remember, the democrats are a collective where situations are managed, not a political party of individuals deciding outcomes with personal experience born with intelligence and common sense. Democrats are good soldiers and therefore do what they are told. They believe it's just easier that way to get things done. The good democrat voter let's others do the heavy lifting.

Obama Seeks to Nationalize Each State's Electric Power Sector
Source: Kathleen Harnett White, "The Facts About the Clean Power Act," Texas Public Policy Foundation, April 2015.

April 24, 2015

A new publication by Texas Public Policy Foundation's distinguished senior fellow Kathleen Harnett White identifies key points in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP).
Consider:

• The EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) is a sweeping as­sertion of federal power over states to radically overhaul the entire system of electric power.
• The federal government has nationalized the health care system through ObamaCare and nationalized banks through Dodd Frank. Now, the EPA would nationalize each state's electric-power sector.
• But there is a huge distinction between these laws and the proposed rule: ObamaCare and Dodd Frank Con­gress enacted new federal law. Here, with no new law, EPA has acted in spite of Congress's continual refusal to regulate CO2.
• The rule's purpose is to reduce carbon dioxide from the electric power sector by 30 percent. When you do the climate arithmetic, this rule would reduce supposed glob­al warming by 0.02 degrees Celsius. This is an irrelevant change.
• Compliance with the EPA's require­ments would cede fundamental state authority over elec­tric utilities. Commissioner Tony Clark of FERC testified to Congress that the EPA's rule fundamentally re-orders the longstanding relation between the feds and states to create a "mother-may-I" relationship that has never be­fore existed.

One of the nation's preeminent Constitutional schol­ars, Laurence Tribe at Harvard Law School, denounced this rule. His Wall Street Jounral editorial recently stated, "Frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the Constitution overboard to rescue this lawless EPA pro­posal."