They also ruled that EPA should
not have invented stuff and then required oil companies to buy it.
A federal court delivered a defeat to the biofuels industry Friday, ruling the U.S. government exceeded its authority by requiring refiners to purchase cellulosic biofuel despite the fact the next-generation fuel is not commercially available.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided in favor of the American Petroleum Institute when it ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's process for estimating cellulosic biofuel output "did not take neutral aim at accuracy" and "was an unreasonable exercise of agency discretion."
The court's ruling in effect said the EPA's overly aggressive estimate was set with the goal of promoting the growth of cellulosic fuel to spur investment rather than making an accurate prediction of how much could be produced.
Next thing ya' know, SCOTUS will declare ObozoCare un-Constitutional. The poor mope will have nothing left but the Marines on 14th & K--if he still has them.
With these 2 setbacks, presuming SCOTUS upholds them, & at least a few setbacks with ObamaCare mandates declared violations of the 1st Amendment as they should be,how long before Obama declares martial law & suspends everything but the executive branch???
ReplyDeleteI wish I were joking, but I can see it happening.
"I wish I were joking, but I can see it happening."
ReplyDeletePure fantasy, Al, pure fantasy. Ack!
Not for those who have studied history & seen dictators do similar things in the past. Don't forget, Hitler came to power legally then turned Germany into a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteDitto Mussolini.
Yes, history is full of people...who, like yourself, have "studied" the names and dates but never bothered to comprehend the reasons.
ReplyDeleteAnd history is full of people who don't see the writing on the wall until it's too late.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is not going down the road of dictatorship, Al. The same statements were made by conservatives against FDR in the 1930's. Again, pure fantasy. Ack!
ReplyDeleteActually, I have comprehended the reasons. That is why I stand by what I say.
ReplyDeleteAs for FDR, he laid the foundation for what we are going through today.
As for the person(s) accusing me of being wrong, offer some proof.
I have learned the lessons of the past & see they applicable today as I have pointed out. As the old saying goes: those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
& it seems like that is exactly what America is doing, going down the same socialist path that produced Hitler & Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot.
Proof is in the pudding. I am able to exercise my rights, there are no Brownshirts, martial law does not exist, etc.
ReplyDeleteChicken Little. Ack!
"As for FDR, he laid the foundation for what we are going through today."
Highly debatable. Go find some Heritage Foundation or Brietbart hit piece and get back to me.
Obama has his purpleshirts aka goons from the SEUI as well as the CWA:
ReplyDeletehttp://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/23/video-cwa-union-thug-strikes-young-female-freedomworks-activist/
http://www.examiner.com/article/white-union-thugs-beat-black-man-at-obamacare-rally
& remember, Hitler didn't change everything at once. He undermined the rights over time, just like Obama is doing with our 1st & 2nd Amendment rights.
Anonybozo wants martial law to prove that the SCOAMF is a Commie wannabe-dictator?
ReplyDeleteAnd he has "rights"?
Until 1934, we all had rights to full-auto machine guns. Until the 16th Amendment, we all had 100% rights to our incomes. Until 1986, we all had rights to 100-round magazines.
No frog would jump into boiling water. However, only frog-brained folks make excuses for Statism.
The president has expressed no desire to take away anybody's guns. He has proposed laws and rules restricting the public's access to certain types of weapons, magazines, and ammunition. These proposals are supported by a majority of Americans and a plurality of Republicans, not to mention a large percentage of gun owners. Some of these proposals are actually enforcement of existing laws. Be that as it may, the president can do little without the cooperation of a House with a majority held by the opposition and the Senate which does not have a filibuster-proof majority. Who do you think is going to pass any "tyrannical" laws, and if you think that President Obama will simply bypass the legislature, who do you think will enforce his "tyrannical" orders given that every single employee, soldier, and law enforcement officer of the federal government takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
ReplyDeleteAre you refering to the same oath to uphold the Constitution that Obama took, 4 times? & that the courts have ruled he failedto uphold with his "recess appointments".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYa know, annony 10:51, I'm no fan of Spice, but you're act is tired and sick. Grow up.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that anonymous @ 10:51 can't counter the facts, so he resorts to obscenity clearly meant to mock & put down. Sadly all it shows is his immaturity, not that he is right because he knows he isn't.
ReplyDeleteSince it is clear we can't carry on an adult conversation, any more comments would only serve to letting him continue his temper tantrum because he is losing.
Or the same oath he took to 'uphold the laws'--like the quarterly "stimulus report" that he's failed to file since 2Q '11?
ReplyDeleteHow about the mid-session review that is legally required--and that the little Statist didn't file?
I'll trust my guns and ammo, thanks.
Maybe the Senate should approve some of the cabinet officers and agency officials so that the managers and administrators can do the work that is required.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Dad29 and Al take their guns and march to the White House, with Wolverines painted on their backs? Talk is cheap.
ReplyDeleteAl, wow, you cited Malkin and the Examiner. These sources are just as objective as the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Try again. Ack!
Anonymous @ 10:46
ReplyDeleteDid you even bother to check the articles. I used them because they have videos documenting my claims. Or are you afraid to see the truth.
By the way, you can cut out the "Acks". I know they are simply your mocking me because of my Bill the Cat logo. It also proves my point that you can't refute what I am saying so you have to mock us to put us down.
BTW, I am a Hawkeye. I might remind you that our state motto is "Our Liberties we prize & our Rights we will maintain."
Maybe you better check out the facts & then try to seriously refute them rather than using put downs to salve you ego & make yourself feel something you aren't superior because you are looking down your nose at us.
Until you can come up with some real proof to refute our facts, then this conversation is closed.
Of course I checked the articles. The two authors have a history for making sweeping generalizations. Hey, it's what they do. Classic confirmation bias on their behalf. I do not condone the actions which were discussed in the sources; but for Malkin and McAdam to repeatedly classify unions = thugs is essentially a juvenile. Talk about mocking! That classification is akin to an author from the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post calling tea partiers = racist.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you ought to look in your own backyard...
http://www.njdc.org/media/entry/malaysian_anti_semitism_excused_by_conservatives
Thbbft!
FYI--I loved reading Bloom County, Outland, and Opus, authored by a liberal and atheist, Berkeley Breathed.
"I'll trust my guns and ammo, thanks."
ReplyDeleteTrust in the Lord, but verify with gun porn.