“I applaud subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (KY) effort to expose the consequences of EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions on the job market. The EPA is taking the lead in advancing Obama’s war on fossil fuels and the agency’s primary weapon is to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately for hard working Americans, the cost of EPA’s action will make energy prices higher, drive jobs overseas and force more citizens to the unemployment line. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has been transformed to a job killing machine,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored Project 21 black conservative leadership network.

During a hearing before the same Subcommittee on February 9, Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, testified that EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, “will slow investment and job growth and have no significant impact on reducing global GHG emission growth.”

“Given the high-unemployment rate and soaring gasoline prices it’s unconscionable that Obama is allowing an agency under his control to add to the economic burdens of industry for no meaningful benefit to the environment,” added Deneen Borelli.

Dr. Thorning will be providing testimony at the hearing, “EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs,” Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building.

“Congress needs to step up and stop EPA’s unrestrained effort to regulate our economy. The hearing will educate the public and lawmakers about the effects of EPA’s actions on job creation and likely provide evidence for elected officials to block the agency’s regulatory effort,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

“Our future economic prosperity depends on having a cheap and abundant supply of energy. Obama’s war on fossil fuels is really a war on the American way of life,” added Tom Borelli.

“After failing to legislatively enact cap-and-trade emissions regulations, the Obama Administration relied on a perverted interpretation of the Clean Air Act. America rang in the new year to new rules on energy and manufacturing that could cause our nation’s economic engine to seize up,” said Dana Joel Gattuso, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs.

On February 9, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the discussion draft of “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” This proposal, set to be introduced by Senator James Inhofe and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, specifies that the Clean Air Act is not to be used to address climate change and thereby bars EPA regulators from imposing and enforcing carbon restrictions based on the Act.

Regulations imposed by the Obama Administration on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources that went into effect on January 2 could return the American economy to the conditions from which it is still trying to recover. According to Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, U.S. investment could decline by five to 15 percent — a decline as large as was seen at the beginning of the current recession in late 2007.

Furthermore, the Affordable Power Alliance estimates 2.5 million jobs will be destroyed by 2030, and household incomes will decrease by $1,200 a year while consumer prices will increase. In particular, the Alliance points out the discriminatory nature of the new rule, noting: “The EPA regulation will impact low income groups, the elderly and minorities disproportionately, both because they have lower incomes to begin with, but also because they have to spend proportionately more of their incomes…”

“What the Obama Administration is ramming down America’s throat is a cap without the trade, and it could plunge our nation further into recessionary despair,” added the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Gattuso. “This hearing on the Upton-Inhofe proposal is the first step in putting accountable, elected representatives back in charge of the duties assigned to them by our Constitution.”

The Founding Fathers handed the citizens of the new America a republic, that is, a government where the supreme power rests in the hands of those legal citizens who can vote, a government of and by the people who through their power of the vote elect representatives. Have we kept it?

James Madison wrote:”To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical [highly unrealistic] idea.”

George Washington knew what government was all about when he said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Thomas Jefferson, who was adept at discerning the thoughts and intents of men, wrote: “A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.”

And George Washington from his life’s journey understood what the influence of money and power can bring: “Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

Today, it is the highest bidder that is at the root of corruption that threatens the foundation of our great nation. Every American plays a role whether they know it or not. Are you a sympathizer, an activist, a fanatic or one of the many uninformed, easily swayed by the direction the wind blows?

Eric Hoffer, author of “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”, tells of the nature of humans and the techniques involved in recruiting the masses, often blindly, to carry out the mission of the high bidder. He wrote:

“All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach, and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.

All movements however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherence from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of minds.” At first they come gently. With power they speak and act boldly.

Hoffer believed that it mattered not under what banner one might exercise their sympathy, activism or fanaticism, it was the same “types of minds” that flocked to a movement. I contend that those looking for blind-faith followers need only to pick the right subject that fits the needy. We see this everyday in animal rights, environmentalism, global warming or any mass movement, such as “Going Green” that appeals to the senses and plays on emotions, paving the way for the same “types of minds” to blindly follow.

The masses mindlessly follow, drawn by their strings of emotions expertly pulled on by the leaders of the doctrine; unaware and perhaps uncaring as to who or what leads them. Needs dismantle sensibility. Emotions overpowering.

Few grasp the real doctrine they are eager to give allegiance to, seemingly more interested in self-gratifying actions that might ease one’s restless sleep. Blind emotions combined with a diminished sense of virtue can steer people in many directions, unwittingly playing into the hands of powers seldom seen, more often unrecognized, uncaring as the small world about them seems unblemished.

The same “types of minds” allow for the manipulative control by the larger powers. How innocent it may seem to save an owl, clean up our water, limit our air pollution, save the planet or simply go green. It’s the corruption hidden behind the superficial crusade that is most troublesome and seldom exposed……at least until now.

A Washington Examiner Special Report notes that when Carl Pope worked for the Sierra Club as the Executive Director, he said, “environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement.”

What once began as a simple and seemingly innocent desire by some to change our stewardship of our natural resources, has turned into a multi-billion dollar corrupt business that too few people in this country are even aware of. Giving a dollar here and a dollar there, carrying banners, volunteering time, all believing in working toward something good, when in reality the same “types of minds” have lined the pockets of people like Al Gore.

Mark Hemingway writes of Al Gore: “Perhaps the most well-known environmental leader in the country, and for good reason. The author of “Earth in the Balance,” star of “An Inconvenient Truth,” and organizer of the Live Earth concert has done more than any individual to raise awareness of global warming claims. And, since he’s walked away from politics, book sales, speaking fees and his role as an environmental investment adviser have made him hundreds of millions of dollars.”

And he is only one of many manipulating the same “types of minds” to achieve financial reward. This must be part of the “broader progressive movement” Carl Pope referred to.

While the same “types of minds” are giving money and time to save the planet, the “broader progressive movement” has little actual concern about saving anything, except enough money and power for themselves.

Are you ignorant of these movements? Are you clueless but give anyway? Perhaps you are one who sympathizes with those who play on your emotions and you bite into the premise that we all should do a little something? Maybe you’re a real activist or a full fledged fanatic.

Regardless of what you are or think you are, I’m sorry to say you are one of those same “types of minds”. You and your children are being played like a well worn fiddle and you probably don’t even know it.

Tom Remington

“Cap-and-trade is a central part of Obama’s war on fossil fuels,” said Borelli. “Obama has partnered with his big business allies including GE, Duke Energy and Johnson and Johnson to advance his global warming policy. Obama may push for a cap-and-trade bill to be passed during the lame duck session of Congress even though this policy is unpopular with Americans and it will harm the economy through high energy prices. The partnership between big government and big businesses threatens our liberty.”

The rally portion of the March on D.C., organized by FreedomWorks, is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM eastern on the West Front Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Borelli has taken on some of America’s biggest business leaders — including the heads of General Electric, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Johnson and Johnson and PG&E — because of their support of a cap-and-trade energy policy.

Most recently, a joint ad campaign undertaken by the National Center for Public Policy Research and FreedomWorks was credited with helping force heavy-equipment manufacturer Deere and Company to withdraw from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and radical environmental groups lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations.

The Free Enterprise Project is also calling on the public to sign a petition calling on GE CEO Jeff Immelt to resign due to his lobbying for economically risky Obama Administration initiatives and simultaneously running the MSNBC news network. The petition can be found at http://www.bigbusinesswatch.com.

“Tea party activists are just as mad at corporate America as they are with politicians who are selling out their freedom,” said Borelli. “Tea partiers want CEOs to be held accountable for trying to make a buck at the cost of people’s liberty and economic futures.”

Washington, D.C. – Secretly and behind closed doors, the Obama Administration has cooked up a new scheme to subject all of America’s waterways — oceans, rivers, bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes — to federal zoning.

So says a new policy paper by Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., a preview of which has been published this afternoon in the Daily Caller.

The new policy, imposed July 19 in the form of a presidential Executive Order, so far has received scarcely any attention from the press, Congress or policy community.

“The scope of what the administration is putting together is no less ambitious than its health care and cap-and-trade initiatives,” says Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., author of the analysis and Senior Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Industries — from agriculture, timber, and shipping to fishing, mining, and oil and gas — stand to be affected. The inclusion of the Great Lakes in the plan signals the reach of the new policy. Indeed, the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio River Valleys will be targeted every bit as much as coastal North Carolina or Alaska.”

The initiative is so broad in scope, Dr. Cohen says, it could lead to the nationalization of our energy industry even if Congress declines to adopt controversial cap-and-trade legislation.

Under Obama’s Executive Order, Dr. Cohen says, “The EPA — far and away the nation’s most powerful regulatory agency — could, for example, determine that emissions from power plants are harming the oceans. And if Congress fails to pass a cap-and-trade bill, the EPA could use the pretext of protecting the oceans to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions as another extra-legislative way to pursue the administration’s global-warming agenda.”

Despite its low profile and immense impact, Cohen says, a White House-directed interagency task force spent over a year on the project. No Congressional approval or meaningful Congressional input was sought.

The Daily Caller preview of Dr. Cohen’s study is available at http://tw0.us/Pyv.

Big Business Played a Major Role In Passing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Legislation, says the Free Enterprise Project

Washington, D.C. – The Free Enterprise Project is charging President Obama with having a double standard on corporate money and influence.

“After using big business to advance his political agenda, suddenly President Obama is expressing concerns about corporate money in the political process. The fact is corporations played a crucial role in making ObamaCare law and getting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed in the House of Representatives,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s Free Enterprise Project.

During his radio address Saturday, President Obama expressed fear that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case would allow corporate special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections. The president warned that companies could “hide behind a phony name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future,’” since a business entity paying for TV advertising is not required to disclose its name. The president added that the business could be a foreign corporation: “You don’t know if it’s BP,” said Obama.

Borelli notes that President Obama was the sole spokesperson in a television advertisement touting the benefits of his health care plan — an advertisement sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, an organization funded by the drug industry and SEIU, the service employees’ union. In addition, Politico reported that PhRMA, the drug industry trade group, at one point planned to spend “as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.”

“President Obama’s selective outrage about corporate influence is alarming. It’s ironic that the president himself appeared in a TV advertisement sponsored by what he now calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” added Borelli.

“The President’s reference to BP is also disturbing. While Obama is trying to frighten the public by depicting BP as a ‘foreign-controlled corporation,’ he failed to mention the company was an ally in lobbying for his cherished cap-and-trade legislation. BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying group that was largely responsible for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives in 2009,” said Borelli.

Borelli notes that corporate interests such as General Electric have been a key ally of President Obama: “GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been a cheerleader for Obama’s political plan including the president’s green energy agenda. Immelt has partnered with Obama in seeking the so-called green energy economy and the company has aggressively lobbied for the president’s $ 787 billion stimulus plan. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the stimulus money was subsequently steered to GE’s customers. It’s disingenuous for the president to challenge corporate influence when he has actively partnered with big business when it served his political purposes,” added Borelli.

In a radio address last year, Obama cited the important role corporations were playing in pressing for cap-and-trade, saying, “Utility companies and corporate leaders are working with environmental advocates and labor leaders to find a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to fight climate change, and to create millions of new jobs in America.”

Borelli concludes, “Corporate special interests such as GE and the drug industry can be as much as a risk to liberty as progressive politicians. This is especially true when the agenda of big business aligns with progressive elected officials and labor unions. This is why Tea Party activists need to challenge politicians and business leaders.”

Washington, D.C. – Today policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling attention to Dow Chemical’s exploitation of Obama’s failed energy policy.

“Dow Chemical is taking advantage of President Obama’s failed leadership on energy. Dow is aggressively lobbying for cap-and-trade and Obama’s green initiatives to line its pockets with taxpayers’ funds while it expands the company’s manufacturing base overseas. American taxpayers are subsidizing Dow’s moving costs,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Dow is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying coalition that is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation.

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives last year gave companies the vast majority of energy tax revenue in the form of carbon allowances free of charge. Originally, President Obama intended to auction off carbon allowances to industry with the revenue going to the government.

Dow is expanding its investment in overseas operations especially in the Middle East. In 2007, Dow entered into an agreement with Saudi Aramco to establish a multi-billion dollar petrochemical joint venture based in Saudi Arabia. More recently, Dow partnered with the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology on a multi-million dollar joint research effort.

“Dow CEO Andrew Liveris’ actions demonstrate he sees the company’s future outside the U.S. In the U.S., Dow is happy to join with the growing list of climate profiteers to exploit Obama’s green dream but when it comes to real investment in chemical manufacturing, Liveris is all in with Saudi Arabia,” added Tom Borelli.

Dow is also aggressively lobbying for the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. The legislation, also known as ‘Cash for Caulkers,’ was recently passed by the House of Representatives, and provides rebates for homeowners who take measures to update their homes with energy saving products such as insulation. Dow, a supplier of home insulation products, stands to cash-in on the bill that provides $6 billion in rebates.

“Savvy CEOs are reaping the benefits of Obama’s poor leadership. Big business has figured out it can profit from Obama’s green initiatives which are subsidized by government funds. This is a losing proposition for Americans; our debt goes up while companies such as Dow use subsidies to make significant investments overseas,” said Deneen Borelli, Fellow with Project 21.

“The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will only exacerbate problems for the oil and chemical companies. Obama’s war on fossil fuels will likely chase more companies overseas leading to slower economic growth and higher unemployment,” added Deneen Borelli.

It has now been 57 days since the disastrous BP oil spill, and President Obama has still failed to take charge. Last night’s scare mongering address to the nation — avowing that the answer to the oil spill is for Americans to end their “addiction” to affordable energy — was no exception.

The American people want to hear that the President has a doable plan for stopping the continued spewing of oil and for cleaning up the mess. They do not want to hear him exploit a tragic oil drilling accident to fulfill his political agenda of replacing fossil fuels with costly, unviable alternative fuels that will drastically change our way of life. Nor do Americans want to be penalized for BP’s actions.

Furthermore, President Obama is not being honest with Americans when he says we’re running out of places to drill. As Patrick Creighton of the Institute for Energy Research tells the Los Angeles Times today, “We have over a trillion barrels of oil shale out West. Billion of barrels of untapped oil in Alaska. And more coal and natural gas than we know what to do with.”

The American people want to see action, not political opportunism from our President.

Washington, D.C. – Responding to President Obama’s speech on the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, The National Center for Public Policy Research is calling attention to BP’s role in pushing Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy.

BP was a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a lobbying coalition that played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives last year and the company also played a role in negotiating the terms of the Kerry-Lieberman bill recently introduced in the Senate.

“It’s ironic that Obama is touting legislation inspired by BP. While Obama criticized the oil industry’s influence over its regulators he failed to mention the role BP was playing in influencing the president’s cherished cap-and-trade legislation,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D. Director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

“Maybe in addition to the tragedy in the Gulf, Obama and Hayward will discuss cap-and-trade legislative strategy when they meet,” added Tom Borelli.

According to The Hill, “Hayward indicated he was encouraged by the effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to write compromise climate legislation.” Other media outlets reported on BP’s effort to improve the elements of the bill.

Senator Kerry also mentioned BP as one of the companies that supports his cap-and-trade bill.

“Given BP’s incompetence and its awful record with environmental and safety matters, it’s outrageous elected officials allow the company to influence legislation. Maybe if BP spent less time and money in lobbying and more on safety we would not be suffering from this environmental disaster,” said Deneen Borelli, fellow with Project 21.

“The public should demand that the ‘BP Bill’ should be soundly rejected by the Senate. It’s outrageous that elected officials are bashing BP in public while they seek their advice in private,” said Deneen Borelli.

Deneen Borelli also commented on Obama downplaying the cost of cap-and-trade to Americans. During the presidential campaign Obama said, “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.”

Last night Obama minimized the cost saying, “Now, there are costs associated with this transition.”

“It’s shocking the degree to which Obama is misleading the American people about the cost of cap-and-trade. Obama’s priorities are with his progressive ideology and not with the interests of ‘we the people,’” Deneen Borelli said.

Call for Voluntary Return of Gifts Spurred by Reports that BP Could Go Bankrupt

Washington, D.C. – In light of recent reports that BP may go bankrupt paying claims for damages and cleanup of the Gulf oil spill, The National Center for Public Policy Research today called on organizations and individuals that have received contributions from BP or its affiliated foundation in recent years to return these donations, or to contribute them to a reputable, independent Gulf cleanup fund.

“It is now well-established that when politicians and others find themselves in receipt of donations of dubious or inappropriate origin, they return those donations,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Donations were returned to Goldman Sachs after that firm was charged with civil fraud. Numerous Florida politicians returned donations from a law firm charged with operating a Ponzi scheme. President Obama returned donations from his aunt, an illegal alien, and from a man charged with murder before the latter’s conviction, and very many donations were returned to Enron, among others.”

“The argument for returning the money in this situation is even more compelling than most, in light of the fact that the full cleanup effort may not occur if BP goes bankrupt. Nobody thought that Goldman Sachs was going to go belly up. Returning BP’s money to assist cleanup efforts and help those harmed by the leak would respect both the moral imperative and the environmental imperative,” added David Ridenour.

According to published reports, major environmental advocacy organizations in receipt of major gifts from BP in recent years include the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council and others. Very many politicians from both political parties also have received contributions.

“It is not appropriate to on the one hand to criticize BP for taking what appear to have been shortcuts with safety and environmental needs while at the same time profiting from BP’s business model,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “And it’s not as if returning the BP grants would cause these institutions to close their doors. The Nature Conservancy reported nearly $1.4 billion in revenue in 07-08, against about $900 million in expenses, with net assets of nearly $5 billion. The World Wildlife Fund raised $10 million more in FYE 2008 than it spent, and had nearly $300 million in net assets. The World Resources Institute had over $50 million in net assets.”

“These environmental organizations are to the non-profit community what the Fortune 100 is to the business community,” Amy Ridenour continued. “Even the least known of these groups, the Wildlife Habitat Council, reported revenue of $2.9 million for FYE 2009, with the publicly-reported BP monies they received totaling far less than their net assets.”