Newly Elected Tea Party Governor Of Kentucky Tells Obama’s EPA To “Pound Sand”

Tea Party Kentucky-Elect Matt Bevin Tells Obama EPA To ‘Pound Sand’ – Politistick


It was supposed to be a “neck-and-neck” race between Tea Party-backed candidate and political newcomer Matt Bevin and Democrat Jack Conway in the Kentucky gubernatorial race on November 3.

But Bevin crushed Conway by a whopping 9%, 52.5% to 43.8%. It was a bloodbath, with Bevin winning all but just a few counties.

If that wasn’t enough to twerk leftist Democrats and their establishment Republican brethren, the state elected another Tea Party champion, Jenean Hampton, the first black woman ever elected to statewide office in Kentucky.

But it’s not just Democrats and RINO Republicans who are threatened by these new anti-establishment, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution Kentucky leaders.

The unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from Washington, D.C., who unconstitutionally pass rules, laws and regulations without any vote from Congress, were given a powerful two-word message from Governor-elect Matt Bevin.

The Tea Party favorite Bevin, fresh off his huge victory, appeared on The Glenn Beck Radio Program on Friday and said that in regards to the Obama EPA’s tyrannical and un-American efforts to shut down a great American industry – the coal industry – he will tell the controlist agency to “pound sand.”

“Why it is that we in Kentucky – that sit on two extraordinary basins, the Illinois basin and the Central basin, an abundance of this – how are we not participating in something that the world wants more of than they ever have?

And so, from my way of thinking, we will tell the EPA and other unelected officials who have no legal authority over us as a state, to pound sand.”

Bevin told Beck that the Constitution grants the EPA “no authority” over the state, because of the Tenth Amendment, and that the only thing the EPA can do is take the state to court because they have “no enforcement arm.”

Matt Bevin told Glenn Beck that he is fed up with the federal government “bribing us with our own money” and plans on putting a stop to it.



EPA Pisses Away Another $1.2M In Taxpayer Money On “Environmental Justice” Grants

EPA Doles Out $1.2 Million In Environmental Justice Grants To Prepare Poor Neighborhoods For Climate Change – CNS


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the recipients of nearly $1.2 million in grants to non-profit and tribal organizations “to address environmental justice issues nationwide.”

“The grants enable these organizations to conduct research, provide education, and develop solutions to local health and environmental issues in minority and low-income communities overburdened by harmful pollution,” the Oct. 8 press release stated.

“EPA’s environmental justice grants help communities across the country understand and address exposure to multiple environmental harms and risks at the local level,” Matthew Tejada, director of EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice, said in the press release.”

“Addressing the impacts of climate change is a priority for EPA and the projects supported by this year’s grants will help communities prepare for and build resilience to localized climate impacts,” Tejada said.

“Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” thedocument announcing the recipients of the grant funding stated.

“Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal state, local, and tribal programs and policies,” the documents stated.

One of the recipients is the Green Jobs Corps in New Haven Connecticut for “Creating a New Generation of New Haven Environmental Justice Leaders.”

The Greater Northeast Development Corporation in Virginia will use a “community-based participatory approach for southeast community resilience and adaptation to address lung health impacts exacerbated by climate change.”

In certain neighborhoods in Baltimore, Md., the grant funding will “mitigate the impacts of climate change on these communities by increasing the area of ‘green’ spaces…”

The Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago will help make the Chatham neighborhood “rain ready” to prepare for an increase of “rain events” from climate change.

Some other projects being funded include:

• A program will install solar panels in the homes of low-income residents in Colorado.

• Teaching Washington state residents about producing “locally grown food with a low-carbon footprint.”

• Educate residents of the Chickaloon Native Village in Alaska about “the connection between coal surface strip mining, transporting, exporting, and consumption in relation to climate impacts, how climate impacts are being experienced locally, statewide, nationally, and globally. “

• Ground Water New Orleans will be “teaching students to design, build, and install solar powered charging benches on or near bus stops in underserved communities.”

This grant funding dates back to 1994, according to the recipient document.

“In 1994, the Office of Environmental Justice established the Environmental Justice (EJ) Small Grants Program whose purpose is to assist communitybased/grassroots organizations and tribal governments that are working on local solutions to local environmental problems. Funding specifically supports affected local communitybased efforts to examine issues related to a community’s exposure to multiple environmental harms and risks.”

The document stated that the funds are divided equally between organizations in 10 regions across the country designated by EPA.



Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama’s Latest EPA Regulatory Scheme

Obama’s Environmental Agenda Suffers A Big Setback In Court – Daily Caller


A federal judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction late on Thursday that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward on an ambitious plan to expand the federal government’s power to regulate water pollution.

Judge Ralph Erickson concluded that the 13 states which collaborated to challenge the new Waters of the United States rule were likely to be harmed if the rule was allowed to be implemented, and he also concluded that the rule is unlikely to survive a final court judgment.

The ruling is a tough blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard for the new rule. For the time being, the injunction only applies to the 13 states in the lawsuit, while the rule will go into place for the rest of the country starting Friday.

The Waters of the United States rule, proposed in April 2014, the Obama administration’s effort to enforce its vision of the Clean Water Act. The rule would alter the definition of what constitutes the “waters of the United States” under the act, thereby increasing the amount of water subject to federal regulation. Critics, comprising Republicans along with many agricultural and business interests, argue that the new rule is a power grab by the federal government, which would give them unprecedented control over bodies of water located entirely within individual states. Some have argued that even flooded ditches could fall under federal oversight through the new rule.

The 13 states winning in Thursday’s ruling aren’t the only ones challenging the rule. Several other lawsuits have sought injunctions in federal courts, but those injunction requests have not succeeded thus far.

In his ruling, Erickson characterizes the rule as “exceptionally expansive” in how it defines the waters of the United States. If implemented, Erickson writes, it would “irreparably diminish” states’ sovereignty over their own waterways. He also found that states would incur major financial distress from the new rule, noting that North Dakota would now have to spend millions on costly mapping and survey projects before it could approve new oil wells in the state.

“The breadth of the definition of a tributary set forth in the Rule allows for regulation of any area that has a trace amount of water so long as ‘the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark’ exist,” Erickson writes. Erickson added that many parts of the rule were made without any clear scientific basis, and thus the rule appears to be “arbitrary and capricious” in nature.

“I am thrilled that Chief Judge Erickson agrees EPA’s WOTUS rule should be enjoined,” said Pam Bondi, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA overstepped its authority, again. The EPA should not be permitted to intrude unlawfully on state authority and burden farmers, businesses and landowners.”

The League of Conservation Voters, on the other hand, quickly slammed the new injunction.

“This is a terrible decision for the 1 in 3 Americans who have already been waiting too long for these vital protections for their drinking water,”said League legislative representative Madeleine Foote in a statement. “The District Court for North Dakota’s decision puts the interests of big polluters over people in need of clean water. Blocking the implementation of the Clean Water Rule leaves in place an unworkable status quo that jeopardizes the clean water our families, economy, and communities depend on.”



After Contaminating River With Orange Sludge, EPA Delivers Replacement Water For Navajo Farms In Dirty Oil Tanks

EPA Draws Ire Of Navajo Nation After Water Arrives In Dirty Oil Tanks – Washington Times

The EPA spill that contaminated rivers in Colorado and New Mexico was bad enough, but now Navajo Nation officials are fuming after a delivery of water for livestock and crops arrived in dirty oil tanks.

Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye’s finger came up brown and oily after he ran it inside the spigot of a water tank, one of nine delivered by an EPA contractor to Shiprock, New Mexico, in the aftermath of the accident that sent orange mining waste down the Animas and San Juan rivers.

“This is what they expect our animals to drink and to use this and pollute our farmland, our canals?” said Mr. Begaye in video posted Wednesday on his Facebook page.

“This is totally unacceptable. How can anybody give water from a tank like this that was clearly an oil tank and expect us to drink it, our animals to drink it? And to contaminate our soil with this?” said Mr. Begaye. “It’s just wrong. Clearly, it’s wrong.”

In separate statements Thursday, the EPA and its contractor, Triple S Trucking in Aztec, New Mexico, told KOB-TV in Albuquerque that they will investigate the problem.

“Triple S Trucking has received assurances that each of the tanks that were used were steam cleaned and inspected prior to use at Shiprock,” said the company’s statement. “Triple S Trucking will continue to work cooperatively to investigate this complaint about contamination of the agricultural water.”

The episode comes as another black eye for the EPA, which is already under investigation for accidentally triggering the 3-million-gallon torrent of wastewater from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, and then waiting 24 hours before reporting it.

“Every new development of the EPA spill story is worse than the last,” said Jonathan Lockwood, head of the free-market group Advancing Colorado.

In another video, Mr. Begaye draws a cup of water from the tanker’s spigot that comes up speckled with oily debris.

“It just angers us,” he said. “We told them to haul all this stuff off.”


Navajo and agency officials have agreed that Friday will be the last day for EPA water deliveries for farmland and livestock, according to the EPA.

“EPA will work closely with the Navajo Nation in the coming weeks to ensure that a long-term monitoring plan for the San Juan River is implemented,” said the EPA in a Thursday statement. “In addition, EPA is positioned to provide technical assistance in flushing irrigation ditches on the Navajo Nation.”

The Navajo Nation had refused to turn on its intakes from the San Juan River until its own environmental agency gave the water a clean bill of health. Other communities in Colorado and New Mexico reopened their valves last weekend after EPA testing found the Animas and San Juan rivers at pre-spill conditions.

The Interior Department and the EPA’s Office of Inspector General are investigating the Aug. 5 accident.



Your Tax Dollars At Work: EPA Contractor Behind Colorado Mine Spill Got $381M From Taxpayers

EPA Contractor Behind CO Mine Spill Got $381 Million From Taxpayers – Daily Caller


The EPA may have been trying to hide the identity of the contracting company responsible for causing a major wastewater spill in southern Colorado, but the Wall Street Journal has revealed the company’s identity.

Environmental Restoration (ER) LLC, a Missouri-based firm, was the “contractor whose work caused a mine spill in Colorado that released an estimated 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into a major river system,” the WSJ was told by a source familiar with the matter. The paper also found government documents to corroborate what their source told them.

So far, the EPA has refused to publicly name the contracting company used to plug abandoned mines in southern Colorado, despite numerous attempts by The Daily Caller News Foundation and other media outlets to obtain the information. It’s unclear why the agency chose not to reveal the contractor’s name.

What is clear, however, is that ER has gotten $381 million in government contracts since October 2007, according to a WSJ review of data from About $364 million of that funding came from the EPA, but only $37 million was given to ER for work they had done in Colorado.

When contacted by phone, TheDCNF had been informed ER’s offices had closed for the day. The EPA did not return a request for comment on the WSJ’s story revealing the identity of the agency’s contractor.

ER contractors reportedly caused a massive wastewater spill from the Gold King Mine in southern Colorado last week. EPA-supervised workers breached a debris dam while using heavy equipment and unleashed 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into Cement Creek. The toxic plume eventually reached the Animas River where it’s been able to spread even further, forcing Colorado and New Mexico to declare a state of emergency.

The EPA has taken responsibility for the spill and has officials on the ground working with local officials to remedy the situation. Still, local officials and Native Americans are furious with the EPA over the spill, and have not ruled out legal action to make sure the agency remains accountable.

“No agency could be more upset about the incident happening, and more dedicated in doing our job to get this right,” EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a press conference in Durango, Colorado Wednesday. “We couldn’t be more sorry. Our mission is to protect human health and the environment. We will hold ourselves to a higher standard than anyone else.”



Amount Of Toxic Orange Sludge Dumped Into Animas River By EPA Three Times Original Estimate

EPA: Amount Of Mine Waste Water 3 Times Original Estimate – KUSA



The Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday the amount of waste water that spilled from the Gold King Mine and turned the Animas River orange was three times its original estimate.

Shaun McGrath, administrator from the EPA Region 8 Office, said three million gallons of the toxic water laced with heavy metals spilled into Cement Creek last Wednesday. McGrath said the agency updated its initial estimate of one million gallons after checking a U.S.G.S. stream gauge on Cement Creek.

Sunday marked five days since an EPA team mistakenly released the waste water from the abandoned Gold King Mine in Silverton. The orange plume was still moving at about 500 feet per minute, thinning as it reached areas near Farmington, New Mexico.

“These problems happen all the time,” said Mark Williams, a geography professor at the University of Colorado. “Almost every abandoned mine has the potential for that situation.”

Williams is expert on mountain hydrology and hydrochemistry. He said acid mine drainage happens at other sites in Colorado, and he’s worked with the EPA to stop it. At sites in Creede and Rico, Williams said he used tracers, fluorescent dyes and various salts, to figure out how areas of the mine are connected.

“We learn about the hydrology,” Williams said. “How the water gets into the mine and try to turn it off or move it somewhere else where it’s not a problem.”

For now, the problem is still flowing down the Animas River in southern Colorado. Sunday afternoon, the city of Durango and La Plata County declared a State of Local Emergency.

“This action has been taken due to the serious nature of the incident and to convey the grave concerns that local elected officials have to ensure that all appropriate levels of state and federal resources are brought to bear to assist our community not only in actively managing this tragic incident but also to recover from it,” said Joe Kerby, La Plata County Manager.

The EPA said Sunday crews were treating the discharge from the Gold Creek Mine in a series of settling ponds. The agency said it was raising the acidity of the water and adding different solutions to break down the metals in the ponds.

Mike King with the Department of Natural Resources said Gov. John Hickenlooper verbally declared the waste spill a state disaster, and that he would make $500,000 available for resources.

There’s no estimation for when the river may reopen. There’s a concern that toxic sediment could sink into the bottom of the riverbed — something that could potentially be brought back up when a storm comes months or even years down the line.

The EPA has made bottled water available for those who aren’t on the city of Durango’s water supply.




Oopsie! EPA Accidentally Dumps A Million Gallons Of Toxic Sludge Into Animas River In Colorado

EPA Pollutes River With A Million Gallons Of Toxic Sludge – Downtrend


You probably heard about the toxic waste spill that polluted the Animas River in Colorado earlier this week. And you likely thought that some evil mining company or heartless corporation was responsible for this environmental disaster. As it turns out, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were the ones behind this catastrophe. Yeah, the same EPA that Obama uses to kill energy jobs with unrealistic ineffective regulations.

KUNC reports:

A huge spill of hazardous mine waste has contaminated the Animas River, which runs through Durango.

The Environmental Protection Agency says the spill was triggered by EPA employees at the Gold King Mine above Silverton while they were investigating contamination at the mine. They estimate a million gallons of waste spilled from the mine.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot of detail behind this reporting. There are so many unanswered questions like: how in the f*ck does the EPA trigger a million gallon toxic waste spill by investigating?

I did so more research and found this at The Denver Post:

The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed it triggered the spill while using heavy machinery to investigate pollutants at the Gold King Mine, north of Silverton.

The spill was triggered at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday at the mine on the upper portions of Cement Creek, about 55 miles north of Durango. The fluid was being held behind unconsolidated debris near an abandoned mine portal, the EPA says. The agency called the release “unexpected.”

As far as I can tell, there was a tailings pond at this particular mine that was full of toxic sludge and heavy metals. The EPA, using heavy machinery, knocked over an earthen retaining wall and all of that nasty crap flowed out of the pond and into the Animas River. If this was unexpected, as the EPA claims, then clearly the agency doesn’t understand the basic laws of physics.

In addition to not getting that liquid flows downhill, the EPA also doesn’t appear to understand what their mission is. Allegedly their job is to protect the environment. That’s two of the three parts of the name of the agency.

Because of this toxic spill there is expected to be a massive fish and wildlife kill. In addition farmers, ranchers, and citizens down river may not draw water until the spill washes away. Whenever that is.

These are the same geniuses that President Obama thinks are going to clean up the environment and make us safe from climate change. I don’t actually believe in the man-made global warming myth, but I do think the sheer incompetence of the EPA could actually trigger such a thing.

If this toxic spill was caused by a company or individual, the EPA would fine the hell out of them. Someone responsible for something like this would be looking at million of dollars in fines and maybe even jail time. Do we think the EPA will fine itself or put their agents in jail over this? Highly unlikely.



Then the EPA came for your mud puddles……………

The next president and Congress have to turn back the tide of regulation

The Wall Street Journal reported, via Instapundit:

The Clean Water Act limits the federal government to regulating the “navigable waters of the United States” like the Colorado River or Lake Michigan. In 1986 the EPA expanded that definition to seize jurisdiction over tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Now it is extending federal control over just about any creek, pond, prairie pothole or muddy farm field that EPA says has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway.

The agency defines waters as “significant” if they are “located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark,” or, alternatively, within the 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high water mark of waters already under the government’s jurisdiction. That’s already a lot of water, but there’s more.

The EPA acknowledges that the “science available today does not establish that waters beyond those defined as ‘adjacent’” to these “significant” waters should be regulated. But forget science. The agency says its “experience and expertise” show there are “many” other waters that could have a significant downstream effect. Thus the EPA establishes an additional standard for significance that covers just about anything that’s wet.

*VIDEO* Congressman Trey Gowdy Goes After EPA Lackey Over His Utter Incompetence



Eco-Nazis At EPA Caught Concealing Controversial Scientific Data, Trying To Silence Skeptics

EPA Under Fire For Concealing Controversial Scientific Data, Silencing Skeptics – Daily Signal


>>> This is the second of a two-part series. Read the first part: How This Phony CIA Agent Pulled Off A ‘Scam’ To Impose Environmental Regulations On Americans

For more than 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has resisted releasing data from two key studies to the general public and members of Congress. Government regulators used those studies to craft some of the most expensive environmental rules in U.S. history.

When skeptics within the federal government questioned and challenged the integrity of the studies – the Harvard Six Cities Study and an American Cancer Society study known as ACS II – they were silenced and muzzled.

That’s when the Republican staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stepped in to shine light on the situation, revealing the scope of the scandal in in a report titled, “EPA’s Playbook Unveiled: A Story of Fraud, Deceit and Secret Science.”

The key player in the scandal is John Beale, who was sentenced to serve 32 months in federal prison on Dec. 18, 2013, after pleading guilty to stealing almost $900,000 from U.S. taxpayers.

It was in 1994 that Beale first began to beguile EPA employees and supervisors into believing he worked for the CIA. When he failed to report for work, Beale would enter “D.O. Oversight” on his calendar, which meant he was a director of operations responsible for covert operations at the CIA.

But it was the role Beale played beginning in the mid-1990s in creating and implementing regulations pursuant to Clean Air Act that continues to reverberate and linger at the expense of the American people.

Two Allies at the EPA

Over the past decade, evidence has emerged to reveal the Six Cities and ACS II studies did not support enacting one of the most controversial, far-reaching and expensive regulations in American history. Otherwise, the agency would have provided access to the data without a fight.

The political appointees who led the EPA at the time feared the consequences of enacting such a regulation without being able to offer scientific evidence of its necessity.


Former EPA official John Beale, currently serving 32 months in federal prison for stealing $900,000 from U.S. taxpayers. (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/

Beale needed an ally. He needed someone to explain the problems with the research and the reasons the data could not be released. Someone who could run interference with various actors in Washington. He found one in top EPA official Robert Brenner.

Brenner had recruited Beale, his former Princeton University classmate, to the EPA as a full-time employee in 1989.

Brenner, then deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Review within the Office of Air and Radiation, hired his friend despite Beale’s lack of legislative or environmental policy background. He also placed Beale in the highest pay scale for general service employees – a move typically reserved for those with extensive experience.

He then allowed Beale to collect retention bonuses, which go to only the most highly qualified employees to keep them from jumping ship – an unlikely scenario for a man who had picked apples and worked in a small-time law firm in Minnesota before joining the agency. Employees are supposed to be eligible for such bonuses – potentially worth as much as a fourth of the employee’s annual salary – for only three years, but Brenner helped Beale receive them for more than 10.

The two would work together at the EPA for 25 years – during which time the Office of Policy Analysis and Review would grow “in both scope and influence” as Beale and Brenner worked in tandem to muzzle dissenting voices within the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

‘Beale Memo’ Details Regulatory Agenda

At the crux of their agenda – the initiative that would build their legend within the agency – was implementation of a fine particle standard regulating air pollution.

The formula had been set with the American Lung Association sue-and-settle agreement and codified in a confidential document known as the “Beale Memo,” which described how Beale pressured regulatory and clean air bodies to back off criticisms of EPA rulemaking both within the agency and in correspondence with members of Congress.

The EPA attempted to conceal this document from Sen. David Vitter’s committee investigators, but a conscientious whistleblower “turned it over surreptitiously,” the report said.

The memo outlined how Beale and Brenner would work to compress the time the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the voluntary Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had to review regulations so they could get away with using “secret science.”

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee opposed from the start the move to regulate fine particulate matter. Members claimed there was no precedent or court order to establish these regulations, that research had not distinguished between dangers posed by PM 10 particles and those a fourth that size under PM 2.5, and that the PM 2.5 target was arbitrary and tied to no known science. (PM stands for particle matter, a term “for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets,” according to EPA.)

Further, the committee, known as CASAC, complained it was being asked to do the work that took eight years on the previous air quality review in 18 months.

“The Beale memo is interesting in that it provides evidence of Beale’s direct role in ensuring concerns raised by other agencies, CASAC members and OIRA were not considered in the final rulemaking,” wrote Luke Bolar, spokesman for Vitter, in an email to The Daily Signal.


Sen. David Vitter, R-La. (Photo: Newscom)

“While there were major concerns with the science and the cost-benefit analysis as outlined in comments filed on the rule, the Beale memo was written to push back against OIRA publicizing those concerns,” Bolar added. “They didn’t have to directly ‘blunt’ criticism, as Beale got his way through his close ties to Mary Nichols (then head of the Office of Air and Radiation) and Carol Browner (EPA administrator.”

Long-Lasting Impact

Efforts to slow Beale, Brenner and their highly charged regulations failed. As a result, today the “co-benefits” of PM 2.5 are used to justify almost the entirety of the Obama administration’s air quality initiatives even though the immediate benefits still have yet to be proven.

“There is no watchdog now inside the EPA,” laments Steve Milloy, the former editor of, which has posted a fact sheet that debunks the EPA’s PM 2.5 claims. “Whatever the EPA wants it gets. The agency is allowed to run rampant. There was a time when OIRA use to have stopping power, but now it’s just ignored. OIRA has become a rubber stamp.”

This is especially true of PM 2.5, Milloy says. “There is no real world evidence” PM 2.5 has caused sudden or long-term death, he said. “The claim that PM 2.5 kills people is at the heart and soul of how the EPA is selling these regulations. But it’s a claim that’s not supported by the facts or evidence. The EPA has rigged the whole process.”

Indeed, the purported co-benefits have become the benefits, according to Vitter’s report.

“Historically, EPA used co-benefits in major rules as one of several benefits quantified to justify a rule in the RIA,” the report says. “Yet, at the beginning of the Obama administration, there was a ‘trend towards almost complete reliance on PM 2.5-related health co-benefits.’ Instead of being an ancillary benefit, EPA started using PM 2.5 co-benefits as essentially the only quantified benefit for many CAA regulations.”

The Senate report claims all but five air pollution rules crafted between 2009 and 2011 listed PM 2.5.

Lack of Transparency at EPA

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set air quality standards to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety.” In its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the EPA considers factors such as the nature and severity of health effects, the size of the at-risk groups affected and the science.

Several exhaustive scientific reviews prior and subsequent to the 1997 standards were conducted following open, public processes that allowed for public review and comment prior to updating the standards.


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy. (Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/Newscom)

EPA press secretary Liz Purchia told The Daily Signal in an email that the process is open enough.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are bolstered by “sound science and legal standards,” she said, and “several exhaustive scientific reviews prior and subsequent to the 1997 standards were conducted following open, public processes that allowed for public review and comment prior to updating the standards.”

She added:

Beale’s involvement in no way undermines the rational basis for the agency’s decisions nor the integrity of the administrative process. Reducing the public’s exposure to ground-level ozone and PM protects millions of Americans from costly and dangerous illness, hospitalization, and premature death.

All that may be true, but the EPA still won’t provide the underlying data to put the matter to rest.

Vitter and his team say this is because the EPA can continue to overstate the benefits and understate the costs of federal regulations – just as Beale did in the 1990s.

“This technique has been applied over the years and burdens the American people today, as up to 80 percent of the benefits associated with all federal regulations are attributed to supposed PM 2.5 reductions,” the report states.



Obama’s EPA Paid 8 Employees $1 Million To Do Nothing

Taxpayers Paid 8 EPA Employees $1 Million To Do Nothing – Washington Free Beacon

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) kept employees on paid administrative leave for years, costing taxpayers more than $1 million.


An “Early Warning” report released by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on Wednesday revealed that eight employees racked up 20,926 hours of paid administrative leave, including some employees who were paid not to work for four years.

The eight employees cost taxpayers $1,096,868 alone. The report is in response to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis released last month that found government-wide paid administrative leave cost $3.1 billion from 2011 and 2013.

The GAO report detailed that the EPA paid 69 employees to not work for 4,711 days between 2011 and 2013, costing $17,550,100.

The OIG analyzed paid leave for this year, focusing on eight employees who took the most paid leave. Half of the employees were on paid administrative leave for more than a year, including one EPA employee who was paid from May 2010 until September 2014, costing taxpayers $351,300.

The amount of paid leave taken by these employees may be higher, the OIG said, since several were missing timesheets during their period of paid leave.

The OIG report was categorized as addressing the goal of “Embracing EPA as a high-performing organization.”

The EPA allows for paid administrative leave for voting, funerals, donating blood, and bad weather. However, all eight employees were on paid administrative leave for at least four months.

The EPA’s leave manual offers no determination for what is considered an “acceptable amount of administrative leave.”

The OIG pointed out that employees could be placed on long-term paid leave for disciplinary reasons.

“The leave manual also provides that one authorized use of administrative leave is when an employee’s removal or indefinite suspension is proposed, and the employee’s continued presence at the work site during the notice period would constitute a threat to public property or the health and safety of coworkers or the public.”

The EPA has had to deal with employees who have threatened the work environment for their fellow workers before.

The OIG presented its findings to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Oct. 30, and the agency is currently reviewing background information on the employees in question.



EPA Regulators exposed in emails

The Founders are turning in their graves

Emails between top Environmental Protection Agency officials reveal they saw their fight against global warming as putting them at “forefront of progressive national policy.”

“You are at the forefront of progressive national policy on one of the critical issues of our time. Do you realize that?” former EPA chief Lisa Jackson asked former EPA policy office head Lisa Heinzerling in a Feb. 27, 2009 email.

“You’re a good boss. I do realize that. I pinch myself all the time,” Heinzerling replied that same day to Jackson, who was using an alias email account under the fake name “Richard Windsor.

The Constitution? Rule of law? Meaningless to these miscreants

*VIDEO* Rep. Don Young Verbally Bitchslaps Obama’s EPA And Congressional Democrats Over Federal Overreach



Denver EPA Email Instructs Staff Not To Defecate In The Hallways After Several Incidents Reported

EPA Appeals To Denver Workers Not To Poop In Hallway – KBTV


Forget toxic waste dumps, the Environmental Protection Agency apparently has a more immediate cleanup problem in its own backyard: An employee defecating in the hallway., the government’s business news daily and key website for federal managers and executives, reported Wednesday that the EPA management for Region 8 in Denver sent an e-mail earlier this month to staff pleading to stop inappropriate bathroom behavior, including defecating in the hallway.

In the e-mail, obtained by Government Executive, Deputy Regional Administrator Howard Cantor noted “several incidents” in the building, including clogging the toilets with paper towels and “an individual placing feces in the hallway” outside the restroom.

“Management is taking this situation very seriously and will take whatever actions are necessary to identify and prosecute these individuals,” Cantor wrote.

According to the e-mail, a consultant was brought in to address the problems.

That email says “the consultant advised us that this is very dangerous behavior as it includes property destruction and a disregard for the health and safety of others.”

The email goes on to say behavior that includes the destruction of property and disregard for human health is classified as attack-related behavior.

EPA spokesman Richard Mylott told Government Executive in a statement that the agency could not comment on “ongoing personnel matters.”

On Thursday morning, the EPA released the following statement:

Mental illness and destructive behavior in the workplace are serious issues that all large organizations must periodically face. EPA’s actions in response to incidents that occurred months ago have been deliberate and have focused on our responsibility to ensure a safe work environment for our employees. Our brief consultation with Dr. Nicoletti on this matter, a resource who regularly provides our office with training and expertise on workplace issues, reflects that responsibility.

It’s unclear who defecated in the hallway at the EPA, but 9NEWS Psychologist Dr. Max Wachtel says whoever it is might suffer from some sort of mental illness.

“It can be. It can a symptom of cognitive problems. It can be a symptom of psychosis, and it can be a symptom of substance abuse. Sometimes it’s just an extremely immature person,” Wachtel said.



Obama EPA Regulations Contain Nearly 25 Million Words

New EPA Regs Issued Under Obama Are 38 Times As Long As Bible – CNS

Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.

The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.

The Obama EPA regulations have 22 times as many words as the entire Harry Potter series, which includes seven books with 1,084,170 words. They have 5,484 times as many words as the U.S. Constitution, which has 4,543 words, including the signatures; and 17,088 times as many words as the Declaration of Independence, which has 1,458 words including signatures.

Using the website and the Federal Register itself, found 2,827 distinct rules published by the EPA since January 2009 covering, among other things, greenhouse gases, air quality, emissions and hazardous substances.

The Federal Register publishes documents, including proposed rules, notices, interim rules, corrections, drafts of final rules and final rules. The tabulation included only final rules from the EPA.


To get an approximate word count for each EPA rule in the Federal Register, evaluated a few random rules from the 2,827 EPA regulations published since Obama took office, and calculated an approximate average of 1,000 words per page. From this, calculated that the 2,827 final EPA rules that have been published in the Federal Register so far take up 24,915,000 words.

This is only an approximation because some pages in the Federal Register carry more words than others, and some regulations end in the beginning or middle of a page. For example, one of the regulations was five-pages long and totaled 5,586 words, an average of 1,117 words per page.

Another regulation was three-pages long and 3,150 words, which averaged to 1,050 words per page. another rule was four-pages long and 4,426 words, or an average 1,106 words per page.

“The broader question of whether the Obama Administration’s EPA is “overreaching” in its regulatory effects has not gone away. Critics both in Congress and outside of it regularly accuse the agency of overkill,” states a Congressional Research Service report, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

“EPA’s actions, both individually and in sum, have generated controversy,” the CRS report states. “Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns, through bipartisan letters commenting on proposed regulations and through introduced legislation that would delay, limit, or prevent certain EPA actions.”

Yet, EPA proponents are fighting for more rules. “Environmental groups and other supporters of the agency disagree that EPA has overreached. Many of them believe that the agency is, in fact, moving in the right direction, including taking action on significant issues that had been long delayed or ignored in the past. In several cases, environmental advocates would like the regulatory actions to be stronger,” said the CRS report.



As Promised, Obama To Impose New EPA Regulations That Will Cause Energy Prices To Skyrocket (Video)

Obama Declares War On Poor & Middle Class; New Rules Will Force Energy Prices To Skyrocket – Gateway Pundit

We were warned…

In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket.


He wasn’t kidding.


On Monday the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

FOX News reported:

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, a controversial regulation aimed at fulfilling a key plank of President Obama’s climate change agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants existing plants to cut pollution by 30 percent by 2030, under the plan.

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions. The EPA plan will go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period. States will then be responsible for executing the rule with some flexibility.

They are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.

They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.

Obama’s energy policies will disproportionately harm the poor, middle class and minorities.

Real Clear Energy reported:

A study by Eugene M. Trisko for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity reviewed the disproportionate impact of higher energy costs on differing income groups from 2001 to 2011.

The study found that the amount of money spent on energy for half of American households that make less than $50,000 almost doubled rising from 12 percent in 2001 to 20 percent in 2011.

Minorities with lower average incomes than white households are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices.

For example, in 2009, 67 percent of black households and 62 percent of Hispanic households had average incomes below $50,000 in contrast with only 46 percent of white households.[4]

Since minority households have lower incomes than white households, rising energy prices will take a larger share of their family’s disposable income leaving fewer dollars for housing, medicine and clothes.

Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, new greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA and discussions of a carbon tax provides more evidence that Obama’s anti-fossil fuel agenda will force energy prices higher.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


*VIDEOS* Trey Gowdy’s Greatest Hits






Reporter Tries To Ask Obama’s EPA Chief A Question, Is Promptly Hauled Off By Capital Police

A Reporter Tried To Ask The EPA Chief A Question; You’ll Never Guess What Happened Next – TPNN


Ari Natter, renewables and energy efficiency reporter for Bloomberg BNA, tweeted today that he was detained by Capitol Hill police. His crime? He was simply doing his job. Natter attended the American Council On Renewable Energy conference to cover the event. EPA chief Gina McCarthy was a speaker. After she made her remarks, Natter attempted to ask her a question. After all, that is what reporters do. The content of the question was not disclosed in Natter’s tweets, but he did tweet about his experience of being detained. These tweets were picked up and reported initially by the Daily Caller.

Natter was detained while covering the American Council On Renewable Energy conference, where McCarthy spoke. Also speaking at the conference was Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a staunch supporter of green energy who regularly takes the Senate floor to sound the alarm on global warming.

McCarthy spoke about renewable energy issues, including the EPA’s proposal to cut back the amount of ethanol refiners are required to blend into gasoline annually to avoid economic calamity. She also talked about the Obama administration’s view that energy and environmental policy go hand in hand.

While the question asked by Natter that led to his detainment is not known, here is what he tweeted just prior to his ‘arrest’.

Ari Natter

Obama admin “remains committed to biofuels despite the fact that people have concerns about our proposal,” @GinaEPA tells @ACORE. #REpolicy
11:21 AM – 28 Mar 2014

4 Retweets 1 favorite

Natter was subsequently released after police checked with their superiors and ran a background check to determine if his press credentials were valid. They were, so they let him go.

Given the Obama administration’s scandals involving attacks on freedom of the press with the spying on of James Rosen; seizing the phone records of AP reporters; and his attempted plan to monitor news rooms, this latest incident will undoubtedly make one wonder about the future of a free press under an Obama presidency.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


*AUDIO* Mark Levin: Obama’s Political Staff Operating Illegally Within The EPA


H/T Gateway Pundit


Obama’s EPA Tested Deadly Pollutants On Humans To Push Regime’s Leftist Agenda

Report: EPA Tested Deadly Pollutants On Humans To Push Obama Admin’s Agenda – Daily Caller

The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations.


The agency conducted tests on people with health issues and the elderly, exposing them to high levels of potentially lethal pollutants, without disclosing the risks of cancer and death, according to a newly released government report.

These experiments exposed people, including those with asthma and heart problems, to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel fumes, reads a EPA inspector general report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The EPA also exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans.

The EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 to look at the health effects of particulate matter, or PM, and diesel exhaust on humans. The IG’s report found that the EPA did get consent forms from 81 people in five studies. But the IG also found that “exposure risks were not always consistently represented.”

“Further, the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms,” the IG’s report noted. “An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures” but “human subjects were not informed of this risk in the consent form.”

According to the IG’s report, “only one of five studies’ consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant” they would be exposed to, but even more alarming is that only “two of five alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

Three of the studies exposed people to high levels of PM and two of the studies exposed people to high levels of diesel exhaust and ozone. Diesel exhaust contains 40 toxic air contaminants, including 19 that are known carcinogens and PM. The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM, but seemed to downplay them in their scientific studies on humans.

“This lack of warning about PM,” the IG’s report notes, “is also different from the EPA’s public image about PM.”

The EPA has been operating under the assumption that PM is deadly for years now. The IG’s report points to a 2003 EPA document that says short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease – and long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death. A 2006 review by the EPA presents even further links between short-term PM exposure and “mortality and morbidity.”

“Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress on Sept. 22, 2011.

“If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country,” Jackson added.

PM is a “mixture of harmful solid and liquid particles” that the EPA regulates. PM that is 2.5 microns or less is known as PM2.5, which is about “1/30th the thickness of a human hair.” These small particles can get into people’s respiratory system and can harm human health and even lead to death after just short-term exposure.

The EPA set PM2.5 primary standards at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air on an annual average basis, but the agency exposed test subjects to PM levels of 600 micrograms per cubic meter – 40 times what the EPA sets as an acceptable outdoor air standard.

But in five of the studies, people were subject to levels higher than what they signed on for. The EPA IG found that one person was hit with “pollutant concentrations that reached 751 [micrograms per cubic meter], which exceeded the IRB-approved concentration target of 600 [micrograms per cubic meter].”

The EPA says that when PM2.5 levels are between about 250 and 500 micrograms per cubic meter “[e]veryone should avoid any outdoor exertion. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should remain indoors.”

No one was killed during the test, but a source close to the issue says that one test subject – a 58-year-old obese woman with medical problems and a family history of heart disease – was ordered to go to the hospital by the EPA after being exposed to “ambient air pollution particles” in October 2010.

Other test subjects also experienced health problems during their testing. One subject developed a persistent cough after being exposed to ozone for 15 minutes in April 2011 and two other subjects suffered from “cardiac arrhythmias” during testing in 2010 after being exposed to “clean air.”

Regulatory implications

The EPA has been trying to justify setting stricter PM2.5 standards in its upcoming national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). But the agency’s public statements on PM don’t square with its lax attitude about testing the air pollutant on humans.

“Maybe the biggest reason to slow down the new rule is that the EPA is talking out of both sides of their mouth,” Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter said last year. “On one side exposure to it is deadly, and on the other they say human exposure studies are not harmful.”

The EPA has said for many years now that PM is a deadly air pollutant that can cause death even after short-term exposure, but it did not disclose the mortality risks in some of its human tests, despite exposing people to high levels of PM.

One manager overseeing EPA human testing told the IG’s office that “the exposure risk for healthy individuals is minimal” and that a person breathing 420 micrograms per cubic meter for two hours “would inhale the same concentration as they would breathing 35 [micrograms per cubic meter]” which is the EPA’s 24-hour regulatory standard for outdoor PM2.5 levels.

The manager also said “that PM risk is focused on susceptible populations and that the risk is small for those with no overt disease.”

This alarmed Republicans who said that either the EPA was misrepresenting the science around PM2.5 to advance its own regulatory agenda or it was exposing people to deadly pollutants for little scientific gain.

“It’s alarming how the EPA is purposefully and blatantly ignoring an ongoing investigation of the legality and therefore scientific legitimacy of the use of human testing,” Vitter said. “This is another example of the EPA continuing to pick and choose scientific ‘facts’ to support their overreaching agenda.”

“It is a concern that EPA would assert in the rulemaking process that PM2.5 exposure is deadly while simultaneously asserting in the waivers signed by participants in EPA human exposure studies that these exposures are not harmful,” Republicans wrote to the EPA in February 2013. “Furthermore, there are valid questions about the quality or usefulness of the exposure studies actually relied upon by EPA.”

The agency actually proceeded in its PM2.5 rulemaking while the EPA IG’s office was conducting a review of its human testing procedures.

“EPA policy decisions must be based on sound science,” Lek Kadeli, acting administrator for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), said in response to the EPA IG’s report. “While there is a critical need for studies involving human subjects, ORD also understands that the research must be conducted in an ethical and vigilant manner.”

“As documented in the OIG’s report, EPA has established guidelines for conducting this type of research that are far in excess of what is normally required by universities, industry, and other government agencies conducting human studies research,” Kadeli said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story