Category Archives: Environment

NSLF’s Top 10 Least Wanted in U.S. Senate

Editor’s Note: Candidates appear in no particular order.

"Do the 'robot' for me one more time, Barry!"

"Do the 'robot' for me one more time, Barry!"

1. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) – “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” says Murray, but only if it’s her gander and you’re willing to play nice with this big government bureaucrat. In 2009, she threatened Senate colleagues to fund the now infamous $223 million Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” — a favor for her friend Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) — or else she’d make it difficult for them to waste taxpayers’ millions in their own states on their own pork barrel projects.

"So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye!"

"So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye!"

2. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) – For some strange reason, the Rolling Stone’s song “Start Me Up” comes to mind when thinking about good old Harry. Let’s all sing together, especially if you’re a Nevadan: “I’ve been running hot. You’ve got me ticking gonna blow my top.” Why? In Nevada alone, unemployment is at 14 percent and foreclosure rates are five times above the national average. His solution: Grab $57 million in taxpayer funds to pay-off defaulted mortgages in his state. Better watch out for your job, too, because he thinks unemployed American citizens should compete with illegal aliens for whatever jobs still exist.

"Do you think we can re-unite on Dancing with the Stars?"

"Do you think we can re-unite on Dancing with the Stars?"

3. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) – Babs doesn’t think American parents are responsible enough to raise their own children, so she’s pushing the Obama Administration to ratify a United Nations treaty that would empower foreign crackpots and quacks to make decisions about how our nation’s children should be raised, disciplined, and educated. One provision of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.” So, asking Little Johnny to take out the trash could result in a U.N. tribunal determining the legal merits of your request versus his so-called ‘rights.’ Brilliant, Babs! There are some nice men in white coats awaiting your arrival.

"I love it when you talk dirty politics with me!"

"I love it when you talk dirty politics with me!"

4. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) – “There’s only thing worse than big government and that’s big government owned by special interests,” Feingold told the Wisconsin Democratic Convention in June. Guess what? He’s taking in special interests’ money hand over fist in his current campaign alone, making him worse than … himself! And, let’s not forget about a little law he passed in 2002 commonly known as the ‘Incumbent Protection Act’ to silence opponents of big government career politicians in election years.

Is there a cereal for losers, too?

Is there a cereal for losers, too?

5. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) – Lincoln claims that she’s “saving our children” with the $4.5 billion allocated to her Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, but chances are you’re still packing lunches for Little Johnny (or, Jane) while other kids are eating for free, courtesy of taxes taken out of you job wages. Quit the job and maybe your kid(s) will eat for free, too! And, that’s just how big government bureaucrats like Lincoln want it – them taking care of you and your kid(s) from the cradle to the grave.

"You remind me of a younger Arlen Specter!"

"You remind me of a younger Arlen Specter!"

6. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) – “I’ve never voted for a new tax in my life, and I only signed one, and that was on cigarettes, so who cares,” remarked Crist in a July interview with the Wall Street Journal. Who cares? Well, for starters, how about every American citizen who is still free to purchase and smoke cigarettes! Crist seems to think taxpayers who smoke don’t matter, and taking their hard-earned money is proper punishment for a lifestyle decision he opposes.

"Show me how bad you want my old seat!"

"Show me how bad you want my old seat!"

7. Alexi Giannoulias (D-Ill.) – Here’s what President Obama says about Giannoulias: “Alexi’s my friend. I know his character. You can trust him. You can count on him.” Well, back in 2004, Alexi was a loan officer for his family’s bank when it leant $20 million to Chicago mobsters hard hit by the recession. Alexi joins a growing list of FoBs (Friends of Barry) that Americans can’t afford to trust, much less elect to represent their best interests in the U.S. Senate.

"A vote for me is a vote for Nancy Pelosi!"

"A vote for me is a vote for Nancy Pelosi!"

8. Paul Hodes (D- N.H.) – Hodes spends money like it’s nobody’s business, including American taxpayers. On Sept. 15, he told his Facebook followers, “I will fight to create and keep jobs right here in New Hampshire and to end the wasteful spending and reckless policies in Washington that have left our hard-working men and women in the dust.” Those are tough words coming from a guy who has voted lockstep with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to make it nearly impossible for businesses nationwide to afford to create jobs and hire new workers.

"Joe's gonna do to you what I did to New Yorkers - control your appetites and everything in-between."

"Joe's gonna do to you what I did to New Yorkers - control your appetites and everything in-between."

9. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) – For starters, you have to be suspicious of any politician who has the cross-party blessing of New York City’s Nanny-in-Chief Michael Bloomberg. Next, Sestak tells us, “I don’t just give a cute slogan and say cut government, cut taxes. Yes, we all would like that. It’s about effective government. Tell us what you’d cut. I’ll stand up to my own party and to any special interest group. I served this nation. My career is over. This is a passion to do what’s right in service to this country one more time.” Hmm. Was bailing out Wall Street, then buying stock in Bank of America (BoA), and then voting for a second bailout of America’s banks, including BoA, “right” for helping taxpayers or your stock portfolio recover from economic collapse?

Done kissing babies on the campaign trail, Jack turns to horses to win their votes.

Done kissing babies on the campaign trail, Jack turns to horses to win their votes.

10. Jack Conway (D-Ky.) — Conway adamantly refuses to file a lawsuit to repeal Obamacare in W.V. because he doesn’t want to “waste” taxpayer dollars on something that the majority of his state’s citizens didn’t want to waste their money on in the first place. Also note that he has vowed to eliminate the ‘filibuster’ in Congress because he says opponents of Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s big government agenda are always making a fuss about nothing and wasting everyone’s time in the process.

HONORABLE MENTION:

Joe tries to prove that the stimulus is working for West Virginians. Again, he's the only one who believes it.

Joe tries to prove that the stimulus is working for West Virginians. Again, he's the only one who believes it.

11. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) – Manchin said in February that the stimulus bill would “make a big difference in the job market.” West Virginia’s unemployment rate peaked at 10.9 percent that month, dropped down to 8.5 percent in May and has been steadily on the rise ever since, thanks to porkulus funds being flushed down the toilet, literally, in his state. According to Gov. Manchin’s “WEST VIRGINIA STIMULUS/AMERICAN RECOVERY ACT INFORMATION” webpage, “[M]any of the details of the Recovery Act are still being determined both on the federal and state level.” That’s big government talk for, “We still don’t have a clue, but our intentions are really good.”

Don’t see a candidate listed? Spotlight the offender of freedom and liberty on our Facebook page’s Wall or Twitter page.

View NSLF’s additional “Top 10 Least Wanted” lists:

1. Governor (Oct. 28)
2. U.S. House (Oct. 29)
3. State and Local Government (Nov. 1)

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Feds’ New Emissions Standards Threaten Already Unstable Economy

Ultimately, the Enviro-Statists would love for farmers and truckers to return to their roots.

Ultimately, the Enviro-Statists would love for farmers and truckers to return to their roots.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released an extremely vague press release, but one thing was clear: Consumer prices will rise in 2014 due to rigid new emissions standards targeting America’s truckers and farmers.

Beginning in model year 2014, new heavy-duty trucks and tractors must be fitted with environmentally-friendly engines that achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. That means truck and tractor manufacturers will be forced to spend millions in research and design and pass the cost on to their customers who will — you guessed it — pass that cost on to American consumers, unless you believe what Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is saying:

“This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer.”

Wishful thinking by LaHood, but nowhere in the press release does he spell out the real costs to America’s truckers and farmers who will soon have no choice other than to purchase these federally-mandated eco-friendly big rigs and tractors. LaHood, however, hypothesizes:

With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck’s useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

Hey, Ray! Enough with the guessing games and speculation! Tell truckers and farmers how much they will actually pay for these new ‘green’ trucks and tractors. You were kind enough to note that they’d likely be going in to the red during at least the first year of ownership, meaning they won’t likely turn profits unless they jack-up their prices for transporting consumer goods and harvesting crops.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson also fails to look at the bigger picture that could unfold in 2014 and beyond if these new emissions standards make the cost of business for truckers and farmers too much to bear, and ultimately, puts them out of business:

“These new standards are another step in our work to develop a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient American vehicles that will improve our environment and strengthen our economy,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “In addition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend on pick ups and heavy duty vehicles, shipping companies and cities and towns with fleets of these vehicles.  Those savings can be invested in new jobs at home, rather than heading overseas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil.”

Again, wishful thinking by another big government bureaucrat for a best case scenario in which truckers and farmers can afford to purchase expensive new trucks and tractors that may or may not ‘pay for themselves’ over the years to follow.

Soviet-style food shopping coming in 2014?

Soviet-style food shopping coming in 2014?

The underlying fact is that American consumers will ultimately pay the price for the new emissions technology LaHood and Jackson are pushing, and right now, in this economy, that’s not a very enlightening scenario. And, if consumers are not willing to or can not afford to foot the bill for increased costs of everyday necessities –including food, toilet paper and oil transported by truckers — well, things are going to get ugly pretty quick.

NOTE: “NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings: one in Chicago on November 15, 2010, and one in Boston on November 18, 2010. Sessions may end earlier than scheduled if everyone has had a chance to speak.” Those two dates are your only opportunities to make your voice heard, according to the EPA. Chances are you won’t be able to attend, so make sure your congressman and senators know what’s at stake for consumers, truckers and farmers.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Sing Along with the “Nanny State Protest Song”

Wow! This song was just released yesterday and we’re among the first to enjoy it on YouTube. Be sure to take a listen and share it with other freedom-loving Americans for which this song’s lyrics and message ring true.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

NYC Councilman Proposes Outdoor Refuges for Smokers

Brief exposures to secondhand cigarette smoke aren't what's going to kill NYers -- air pollution from cars, buses, taxis, limos, trains, subways, businesses, etc. will get them first.

Brief exposures to secondhand cigarette smoke aren't what's going to kill NYers -- air pollution from cars, buses, taxis, limos, trains, subways, businesses, etc. will get them first.

Seeking a compromise on New York City’s proposed smoking ban at parks and beaches, one city councilman is floating the idea of establishing refuges for smokers to catch a break from another one Mayor Michael Bloomberg nanny state laws.

Today, city council members are expected to entertain Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr.’s plan that would designate about 20 percent of city parks as smoking refuges that would not disturb or offend non-smokers.

Bloomberg and his anti-smoking cronies contend that Vallone’s proposal will still put non-smokers’ health at risk because “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke” can harm them.

Note to Bloomberg: Residents of your city are already inhaling the toxic exhaust fumes from more than 50,000 taxi cabs, buses, and other vehicles for hire every time they step outside. If you’re so concerned about what people breathe, perhaps you should distribute gas masks to motorists before they get stuck in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels at rush hour. A quick whiff of cigarette smoke in a public park is probably some of the freshest air people can breathe in NYC.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

City Wants Residents to Drop Leaf Blowers and Pick Up Rakes

Enviro-statist dictators want citizens to ditch progress and power tools.

Enviro-statist dictators want citizens to ditch progress and power tools.

The last time we heard from the nanny state bureaucrats in Coral Gables, Fla., they were busy defending a pick-up truck ban in court, which they won. Now, the ritzy city vying for the title of San Francisco East is trying to ban leafblowers right when residents need them most.

“Some people look at leaf blowers as a necessity. I look at it as a convenience,” City Commissioner Ralph Cabrera told The Miami Herald. “When people say they won’t be able to keep their lawns tidy, I ask them, ‘How did the world stay tidy and clean before leaf blowers? It did.’”

Jose Perez, owner of a local landscaping company, said a leaf blower ban would force him to hire more workers to rake customers’ lawns and each job would take much longer to complete. As a result, he said he’d have to charge customers more for his company’s services.

“Honestly, it’s funny because I really think the government should be worrying about other things right now instead of leaf blowers,” Perez said.

Tired of enviro-statist dictators trying to reverse progress and send us back to the Pre-Industrial era so we can live like early American settlers? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front and strike back against big government bureaucrats who only embrace ‘progress’ and ‘change’ when it makes you subservient to them.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Dennis Miller Dissects Obama’s Nanny State

“I think the core tenet of the Barack Obama presidency over the first year appears to be the planned obsolescence of self-reliance,” Dennis Miller tells Bill O’Reilly. “The American Dream is now in the hands of day dreamers and we are now going from ‘C’ to shining ‘C-minus.’ Listen, it would appear to me that the only physical malady not covered under Obamacare is busting your ass, and I’m worried about that.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Glenn Beck Reviews the Nanny State’s Greatest Atrocities

Beck hits the nail on the head in this Sept. 22 segment where he details all of the bans and regulations being hatched by big government bureaucrats.

Click image to view video clip.

Click image to view video clip.

If you agree with Beck’s take on the ever-growing nanny state, join us on Facebook and band together with nearly 20K Americans seeking to reclaim their freedom and liberties from the greedy hands of big government bureaucrats.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Enviro-Statists Get Antarctic Cruises Banned

No more cruises, but you can still fly a jumbo jet to Antarctica! Go figure.

No more cruises, but you can still fly a jumbo jet to Antarctica! Go figure.

If you’ve ever considered taking a cruise to Antarctica, now is the time to do it. Beginning Aug. 1, 2011, large cruise ships will be banned from Antarctic waters because the “heavy” fuel they carry poses risks to penguins, seals, polar bears, whales, glaciers, icebergs and the chilly seas.

The Miami Herald reports that Princess Cruises, Oceania and Regent will be making their final voyages to the region in 2010 while Holland America plans to modify its fuel to something more environmentally-friendly, should their ships sink. Celebrity Cruises says it will switch its fuel, as well, but only if legally required.

“The reasoning is that a spillage of this type of fuel is considered too much of a risk—and accidents do happen, as we witnessed in 2007, when Gap Adventures’ M/S Explorer was holed by ice and sank,” explains the South Atlantic News Agency.

Interestingly, a 2007 post-accident report from the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) explained that the M/S Explorer sinking posed “no adverse affects on the environment.”

Here we go again with another draconian ban that stops business dead in its tracks. Countless human beings have been killed in transportation accidents over the past century, yet not once have we seen a ban on airplanes, automobiles, motorcycles, boats or bicycles. Now, when an oil rig or cruise ship sinks, all business is drawn to a grinding halt as to never endanger wildlife ever again.

Chime-in below with your explanation for why and how enviro-statists are able to get away with this.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Stephen Colbert Tackles the Nanny State

“Liberty is under siege,” declares Stephen Colbert, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) agrees completely with the comic faux newscaster.

“If we continue on this course where the government tells us everything we can do, what we can put in our mouths, we will end up a zombie state,” Paul warns. “We will end up with individuals who make no decisions for themselves … People do have a right in a free society to do stupid things.”

Click to view Colbert's satirical take on big government's intrusion in citizens' lives.

Click to view Colbert's satirical take on big government's intrusion in citizens' lives.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Over-Idling Motorists Targeted by City

Stop-and-go traffic could get a lot more annoying in Salt Lake City when the '2-minute rule' goes into effect.

Stop-and-go traffic could get a lot more annoying in Salt Lake City when the '2-minute rule' goes into effect.

Idle more than two minutes in Salt Lake City, Utah, and you could face a fine up to $410. City officials are pondering a law that will target parents waiting to pick-up their kids from school and other motorists standing idle in so-called “hot zones” where vehicle emissions are blamed for diminishing air quality.

An anti-idling ordinance is currently under review by city council members and could go in to effect as early as this winter, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Mayor Ralph Becker’s crackdown on over-idling would exclude idling police cars, hybrid vehicles, refrigerated trucks and vehicles that require engines remain idling for “safety or health” purposes. Vehicles idling in citizens’ driveways are also exempt, for now, but that’s likely to change when the ordinance is enacted.

Councilman Soren Simonsen boasted that he and his fellow big government bureaucrats aren’t concerned about telling citizens what they can and can not do on their private property, so targeting cars idling on private driveways doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, he says.

“We certainly regulate a lot of things on private property,” Simonsen said. “I don’t think it’s a legal question; it’s just how much of a chunk do we want to bite off.”

Agree or disagree with the proposed ordinance to monitor and crackdown on citizens’ idling time, including when it occurs on their private property such as driveways and garages?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine