Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties

Twin Terminators: Gov. Arnold Schwarnzeneggar and CARB's Mary Nichols. Gee, thanks Arnold

My View: The California Air resources Board is quickly becoming the most dangerous bureaucratic  organization in California. This latest contempt for a public that questions the validity of their mission is way over the top. As the headline says, CARB is actively considering:

…a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.

Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?

Of course, it’s OK if CARB makes a 340% error of their own while using false data to impose their will on the people of California. And of course it’s OK to publicly flaunt the ugly hubris of the CARB boss Mary Nichols rubbing her glee in the face of the citizens of California that voted for Prop 23. And of course it’s OK to simply demote a CARB “scientist” who lied about his PhD degree obtained from a UPS store rather than fire his fraudulent bureaucratic butt and then stage a cover up about it.  But, when a citizen submits some data or opinion to CARB that they may later find questionable? Well, that’s a whole different matter.

What a bunch of self serving, holier than thou, public sector putzes!

Evidently CARB is contemplating a regulation that would enable penalties for what would be judged “dishonest statements or submittals” provided to it or “staff.”  I think one can safely assume that it is aimed at curtailing challenges to CARB’s agenda that are based on alternative scientific information and interpretations.

Here’s a message from their listserver, you just have to read this to believe it:

—–Original Message—–

From: owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov

[mailto:owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov] On Behalf Of wfell@arb.ca.gov

Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:31 PM

To: post-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov

Subject: arbcombo — Air Resources Board Workshop to Discuss Proposed Regulation Relating to False Statements Made to ARB or its Staff

ARB staff invites you to participate in a workshop on December 1, 2010 to discuss a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.

The workshop will provide the public with a chance to discuss the proposed regulation and to provide initial comment and feedback

We welcome your participation in this event.

For further information, please view the web page at http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/falsestatements/falsestatements.htm

which contains regularly updated information.

======================================================================

You are subscribed to one of the lists aggregated to make this particular ARB combination listserve broadcast.  To UNSUBSCRIBE:

Please go to http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/listserv.php and enter your email address and click on the button “Display Email Lists.”

To unsubscribe, please click inside the appropriate box to uncheck it and go to the bottom of the screen to submit your request. You will receive an automatic email message confirming that you have successfully unsubscribed. Also, please read our listserve disclaimer at http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/disclaim.htm .

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit the Flex Your Power website at www.fypower.org ..

======================================================================

My source for this email (who shall remain nameless) writes:

An attorney-member of our network, (Roger E. Sowell), who is  knowledgeable in environmental law and possesses a strong technical background, had the following initial reaction:

There is a Federal law at 18 USC 1001, that provides for a fine and up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully providing false information of a material fact, among several other things, to any part of the Federal government.  (I’m paraphrasing here).  see e.g.  http://vlex.com/vid/sec-statements-entries-generally-19190798

As just a sample of the issues, the key words are:

“Knowingly”

“Willfully”

“False”

“Material”

Each of those words has a specific meaning, usually hammered out in court cases.   CARB cannot just arbitrarily choose definitions of such words, to suit their purpose.  They must comply with the law and legal precedents.  Where this gets very, very interesting is in the definition of “false.”   We are dealing with scientific information, and science is fairly fuzzy.  There are uncertainties in data measurements, to name merely one of several problem areas, as well as experimental design errors, choice of data analysis methods, interpretation of results, etc.

There are almost always factions of scientists that can be found to support almost any view – although a few viewpoints are appropriately discredited as crackpot.  The fact is that new data is discovered or developed; new and better explanations for old data are developed; old theories discarded and new theories put forward, showing that science is not settled and that the definition of “false” is slippery when applied to a statement related to science.

There are other problems with a criminal falsity statute, such as applicability to various situations, and exemptions, also conformity with the Constitution and various standards embodied there.  In addition, there are fraud claims that can arise if funding for scientific research led to false statements based upon the research findings.

Also, this could easily be turned around on CARB, by asserting that the “science” they relied on in many of their regulations was false information, knowingly and willfully presented.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Government idiocy, Opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties

  1. jack morrow says:

    We’re doomed if radicals like this ever control all our lives. Doomed.lol

  2. Severian says:

    Sorry Anthony, but the sooner California tumbles into the sea the better. Move while you can.

  3. Adam says:

    Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.

    REPLY: If I can, yes.

  4. jae says:

    Hey, the Californicators are going for the Guiness Book of Records for the Nonsense category. Too bad that the idiots will soon be bankrupt and begging the rest of the Nation for help. California’s majority (liberals/demos/mouth-breathing welfare recipients/illegal aliens) constitutes the perfect example of cognitive dissonance. I hope I don’t have to keep bailing out those morons, but until January, I probably will….

  5. Dave the Engineer says:

    Several years ago I was offered a job in California, 6 figures, to be an environmental compliance manager for a large company. I laughed and said no. Smartest thing I ever did.

  6. Jimmy Haigh says:

    It doesn’t relly matter what we, the people, think. The only people the CAGW proponents have to convince are the politicians. No one else matters. Politicians are not necessarily very intelligent and the CAGW mob managed to convince them years ago.

    Tthe only thing politicians are interested in (well, apart from money and power) is their seat. Fortunately in a democracy we (still) have the power to get rid of these idiots.

  7. JTinTokyo says:

    California Uber Alles!

    “Zen fascists will control you
    100% natural
    You will jog for the master race
    And always wear the happy face

    Close your eyes, can’t happen here
    Big Bro’ on white horse is near
    The hippies won’t come back you say
    Mellow out or you will pay
    Mellow out or you will pay!”

    Lyrics taken from: http://www.azlyrics.com

  8. B. Smith says:

    jack morrow says:
    November 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    We’re doomed if radicals like this ever control all our lives. Doomed.lol
    _______________________________________________________

    What do you mean, IF?

  9. Eric Anderson says:

    Sounds like the question of whether something is “false” could end up in court. That might not be a bad thing — discovery on both sides; full outlay of relevant information on both sides before the court; etc.

    I agree with you that CARB is making a mistake with this, but I’m not sure they would want to actually pursue the policy to the end. Too much light could be shed.

  10. Ed Caryl says:

    It should be pointed out to these dolts that California has lost a million jobs while Texas has gained a million. I wonder why? I second the thought; leave while you can.

  11. Cliff Huston says:

    Just one minor change required:

    Proposed 17 CCR §95020
    Prohibition on false statements

    (a) In any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board, no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner with the Board or the Board’s staff:

    (1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
    (3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or
    (4) omit material facts from a communication with an intent to mislead.

    (b) “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

    (c) “Communicating, communication” includes speaking, writing or submitting any information to the Board or the Board’s staff.

    (d) A fact is “material” if it is necessary to make the communication, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading.

    (e) Each communication forbidden by this section constitutes a separate violation of this section.

    (f) This section and any penalty resulting from its violation are in addition to all other laws of this state.

    (g) This section shall not be the basis for any private right of action.

    (g) This section shall equally apply to Board or Board’s staff communications to the Public.

  12. Jim Cole says:

    Jeez, as a native son of the Golden West, I can only say “WTF?!”

    Thankfully, I don’t live there anymore but I do (unfortunately) still own property in the Golden State.

    Congress needs to force California to face its own financial problems. No BAILOUTS! No loan guarantees. The Golden State is just going to have to face its own problems and deal with its unfundable public-sector retirement benefit programs. California needs (desperately) private sector jobs that generate tax revenue, not more blood-sucking gummint jobs that don’t.

    If California can’t do these things, then it needs to FAIL, as a message to the other states. Nothing is “too big to fail”, because the alternative is a Federal gummint that controls everything.

    BAD, bad news for the nation.

  13. gg says:

    Can’t this be turned around – against these fascists ?

    Since it is the AGW’ers who are knowingly lying and deceiving, cant we take them to court using these laws ?

    I know it wont fly now – but give this another year or two, for scepticism to grow, and it will be they who will be looking at jail sentances.

  14. Sean says:

    This just looks like business as usual for the state of California. Didn’t Bill Lockyer sue the automotive industury for possible damages from global warming because they opposed the state’s mileage standards? (It was summarily thrown out in court.) And if you read Coyote Blog, he pays 5x more for unemployment insurance because his seasonal employees claim unemployment (and get it) when the season ends. If he ever had employee issues that had gone to the CA state labor people, he was told that if he lost case, he could be charged with perjury.

  15. Andrew30 says:

    I read the “Text of Proposed Regulation”.

    I do not see a clause that would allow it to apply retoactivly so the CAGW people are in the clear, as are all of the things CARB itself has done in the past.

    I expect that in future they will point to the information received in the past and say that the information must be true since it would have been against the law to accept lies.

    If you can get to the meeting be sure to bring the entire FOIA download on a CD and anything else you can think of and pass it to the chair of the meeting and get the receipt of the information by the chair entered into the minutes of the meeting.

    Good luck.

    PS. Of possible being a lawyer versed in the procedural protocols in place for this type of meeting.

  16. Mike Smith says:

    Who do they think they are, the TSA?!

    I think it is time to do away with civil service and go back to the spoils system. At least we’ll have some accountability.

  17. jorgekafkazar says:

    Ed Caryl says: “It should be pointed out to these dolts that California has lost a million jobs while Texas has gained a million.”
    /sarcon
    Oh, but Ed, defeating Prop 23 saved 500,000 future green jobs. Really it did. The ads said it would. Prop 23 said California would lose 1,000,000 existing jobs, but Prop 23 was financed by….Oooh! Texas oil barons! So do the math, Ed. Five hundred thousand is bigger than a million…isn’t it?
    /sarcoff

  18. Noblesse Oblige says:

    This seems aimed at intimidation. CARB and their supporters clearly don’t like challenges to the bogus science that underpins their agenda, whether it is global warming, particulates, or whatever. They may well believe that just by having the threat of prosecution hang over such challenges, the skeptics will hesitate. Also it may not be a coincidence that this follows so soon after the election; they may be emboldened now to move to cut down the opposition. Scientists who have results in opposition to CARB may think twice about calling those results to CARB’s attention. If so, it is very likely to be counterproductive to CARB, since it will force scientific debate into arenas it cannot control.

  19. Wade says:

    It simply amazes me how anyone can still live in California. It is like a huge mausoleum: Beautify on the outside, but dirty on the inside. California has some of the prettiest nature beauty in the world and southern California has some of the best weather in the world. But once you look below the surface, it is full of the bloated bureaucracy.

    I would love to move to California, but I rather not deal with this. A crooked tree must be cut down; it can’t be fixed. California’s government cannot be fixed, it has to be cut down and start over.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    Cliff Huston says:
    November 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Just one minor change required: …..
    _____________________________________________

    HMMMmmmm
    Perhaps it is time to turn the tables and play the same game “THEY” have always played on the rest of us citizens. Let the regs go through and then add a one liner to a budget bill that changes it to Cliff’s version AND also apply it to ALL of California’s bureaucrats!

    All you need is someone very quiet and very sneaky.

  21. jorgekafkazar says:

    The regulation need not be legally enforceable, it need only suppress dissenting opinion, which would be instantly punished during hearings, etc. Opponents of Der KARB would be tied up in court at great expense if they dared to open their mouths.

    Today Kalifornia, tomorrow the World!

  22. 899 says:

    As an actor, he was referred to as ‘The Terminator.’

    As governor, he’s referred to as ‘The Governator.’

    In retirement, he’ll be referred to as ‘The Treasonator.’

    There’s a reason why actors should never pursue political careers: They’re actors.

    Actors tell you what you want to hear, and NOT what’s important, because after all, they’re only acting.

    For how many years now has California had an ‘acting governor?’

  23. old construction worker says:

    Lady Justice holds a double edge sword. It cuts both way

  24. Steve Oregon says:

    Well heck, that’s pretty slick.
    Ban the oppostion from participating by officially calling them liars.
    Why stop with AGW related policies. ahnold?
    There’s land use, transportation, education, taxation and many other areas where oppostion could be prohibited.
    And you could make the same agruments about how important it is to do so.

  25. RoyFOMR says:

    Heart before mind; it’s at work here.
    CARB folks, your belief is incontrovertible, your motives are beyond reproach.
    Is it just, perhaps, maybe even slightly possible that you’re confusing the “what may happen” with the “what will happen” and are taking the path of least resistance by conforming to the consensus that, ignoring the uncertainties, has more than one litter in the fight?
    Just a thought: no more than a question. Is that a problem?
    If, by asking, I’m the problem then yes; Houston, we do have a problem.

  26. Jimmy Haigh says:

    899 says:
    November 20, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    “There’s a reason why actors should never pursue political careers: They’re actors.”

    The “Gipper” didn’t do too badly!

  27. Curiousgeorge says:

    Nothing whets a politicians appetite more than the prospect of being the final arbiter of truth, justice, and my way or the hiway.

  28. Magnus A says:

    Has this one been posted? Well, I guess that Arnold can’t be mocked too much nowadays.

  29. r says:

    Political chaos is connected with the decay of language…
    George Orwell

  30. J.Hansford says:

    I think if they introduce this as legislation, it will be they and not us, that fall afoul of it….

  31. r says:

    The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
    George Orwell

  32. r says:

    What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?
    George Orwell

  33. r says:

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
    George Orwell

    Lies=Truth Truth=Lies

  34. Slabadang says:

    My gooood!!!!

    They are taking owe. Lets congratulate the green fachists. They learned how to get in power without passing democracy trough EPA and its State branches. Im sorry dear Amercans but your all ready sold out there is nothing you can do. American freedom and democracy is already gone. When both your biggest parties mowes these players into power there is no one fighting for you left. The same things are happening all ower the world our leaders has betrayed us all. They hate the people they hate human kind ad they hate democracy. This isnt gonna end well!!!

  35. Jimmy Haigh says:

    “Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.”

    “REPLY: If I can, yes.”

    I’ve just hit the tip jar to help pay for the gas.
    Go get ‘em, Anthony!

  36. major says:

    Only if the law includes unfounded or dishonest statements submitted by Global Warming wackjobs (of which there are thousands)……in any case we have to be prepared to legally preempt and prosecute the CARB…..Arnold is complete fool and has completely failed the constituents who voted him in to fix things.

  37. Hank Hancock says:

    As your neighbor living in Nevada (with a business office in Arizona), I’m impress with how many small businesses and families have relocated to Nevada and Arizona from California in the past five to ten years. With California government clowns sticking it to small business and residents, it’s just a matter of time before the last tax payer moves out. The tipping point of tax base sustainability has already been crossed and it is just a matter of time before California’s economy completes circling the drain and disappears into it.

  38. Leon Brozyna says:

    So, who’s the final arbitor they will refer to as to what is true or false ? The IPCC ? Now that’s a real fount of honesty and integrity !!

  39. davidmhoffer says:

    One can only wonder how far this can go before one country or one state bolts the pack. I’m not talking about a China or an India saying screw it, we’ll do what ever we want. I’m talking about states or countries with modern economies and industrial capacity. Let’s imagine for example the consequences of all of the US adopting the direction California is going by federal mandate, and the result is Texas secedes. Can you imagine the conversation?

    President; take your dirty filthy oil and stuff it. We’re not buying any of it and we’re going green.

    Texas; Thanks. We agree to keep our oil. We’re also keeping all these manufacturing companies who are relocating their factories here and bringing all their employees. Shortens the supply chain, more profit for everyone.

    President; Hey! You can’t take those!

    Texas; Huh? You said they were dirty and you didn’t want them…

    President; I said they were dirty and they should go green!

    Texas; Well, they decided that wouldn’t work for them, they want to go… uhm…color of oil.

    President; I’ll call out the army!

    Texas; OK, deal. Of course they are out of fuel so they will have to walk. Those solar powered tanks didn’t work out so well did they, and frankly, the wind powered fighter jets are just pathetic. Oh, by the way, we have an alliance with Canada, they have 6 fighter jets and an armored jeep so you are pretty much outgunned. They got the same problem with you that we do.

    President; what’s that?

    Texas; Border control. We’re tired of dealing with all the illegal immigrants sneaking across the border and working for almost nothing…

  40. gcapologist says:

    Air pollution control agencies (in general) promulgate regulations to reduce known threats, for example, to prevent the emissions of NOx or particulate matter from a combustion process. The agency should be able to show that without the regulation the threat is real.

    I have to wonder what real threat to human health and the environment CARB is expecting to reduce with this regulation, and what examples they have to prove the threat is real?

    btw – permitted sources are already culpable, by regulation, for false statements.

  41. Smokey says:

    Slabadang sees the situation more clearly than most.

  42. BillyV says:

    For once the phrase: “It’s worse than we thought” really- and most appropriately applies.

  43. Nolo Contendere says:

    Time for Californians to get the tumbrels rolling and clean up their self-annointed “elites”.

  44. Iren says:

    They won’t debate but there’d have no choice in a courtroom. The more this nonsense sees the light of day, the better.

  45. Layne Blanchard says:

    The problem is: The People’s Republic of Kalifornia is a huge portion of the US economy.

    It is now a cancer eating away at the country from within. If enough of us cannot stand together, drive the right agenda at the federal level, and eventually forcibly halt this self destroying progression, CA threatens to take out the whole country.

  46. AndiC says:

    Just thinking from Down-Under, but isn’t this proposal in direct contravention of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights?

    Or are those just nebulous concepts that get trodden underfoot by zealotry such as McCarthy-ism?

    Andy

  47. JRR Canada says:

    Ha ha the last desperate gasp of a career leech. This is desperation on top of agonizing stupidity. Bluster of the Bagdad Bob quality, next will follow desperate pleas for mercy.
    You know like ,Its my first day. The scientists mislead me. Look what you made me do.Everyone who doubts me must be insane. In other words the usual BS from the lunatic libtard . Be sure to tighten the arm straps well when you take this bunch into custody for you know they are dangerous to themselves as well. This is an open admission by your CARB that they are done. Please kick them a few times for us Canadians too .On 2nd thought perhaps Canada can provide the use of an island to shelter your climate fraud experts and our proffessional nitwits. Somewhere north of 78 degrees where “its warming like never before”.

  48. bubbagyro says:

    Wasn’t there another autocrat who tried to rule by imposing his will, his autonomy, and his agenda against any and all dissent? I think he also succeeded for about 8 years until he met his end. I believe he was also from Austria, if my history serves me…

  49. Mike McMillan says:

    Adam says: November 20, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.
    REPLY: If I can, yes.

    I’ll cover the travel tab.
    How many tons of carbon credits will it take?

  50. J.B.F. says:

    As I see it, seems to be a basic thought police tactic, very Orwellian.

    It lays down punitive measures that can be called on if California’s scientific fascist police decide “this statement is a scientific lie, by our consensus, therefore you in opposing it are not a skeptic. You’re a dishonest liar and we are gonna penalize you.

    Thugs, free speech means nothing to these people. I expect similar legislation to start popping up in Australia and England.

  51. Noblesse Oblige says:

    There is no doubt that California’s economy and political-social structure are headed for collapse. But we don’t know how it will resolve when the crisis hits. We can expect an appeal for some kind of bail out by the other states via the federal government, which is itself broke. The argument will be made that California, as 13% of the economy, is “too big to fail.”

    Will the feds say, “You broke it; you fix it.” We will see.

  52. mr.artday says:

    I’m part of the California sane drain. With a h/t to Bob Hope in “The Road to Casablanca” (I think) movie; Flea, Anthony Flea.

  53. KenB says:

    Hey you, stay in the dark so WE can feed you CARB Bullshine!! Magic mushroom treatment, and regulation by order!!
    All that is missing is the black toothbrush moustache!!

  54. Ed Waage says:

    Since the term “trick” is used in the proposed regulations, I wonder if Michael Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline” of tree ring proxy temps would count as a violation.

  55. L says:

    Re: the intro photo. By the time you’re fifty, you have the face you deserve. L

  56. fhsiv says:

    Wade said it. “A crooked tree must be cut down….. California’s government cannot be fixed, it has to be cut down and start over”. I say give me the shears! Someone needs to cut back this invasive diseased growth before it spreads elsewhere! Pruning the CARB branch is a perfect place to start.

    Those of you outside this idyllic socialistic paradise had better hope that we can cut this tree down (or at least prune it back agressively). Because if we don’t, then it’s seed will take root in your state (if it already hasn’t) and ruin your life there too! People here in CA aren’t any more stupid than people anywhere else in this country. They have just fallen for a bigger false promise (of something for nothing) than has been peddled in your state.

    Just think about CA for a minute: An unrivaled diversity of natural resources; A tradition of world leadership in industry (petroleum, agriculture, mining, transportation, aerospace, entertainment, technology, etc.); A location that combines physical beauty, mild climate and favorable geography that make it a destination for the world; In addition to literally being the bread basket for the nation. All of this brought down in my lifetime by a bunch of idealists, intellectuals, dupes and sponges. They have literally killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

    It is interesting to note that California is now a great social experiment. With most of the nation seeing the empty choices offered by the nanny state and deciding at the ballot box to try and change course, CA has decided to stay the course to bankruptcy. Re-electing Moonbeam and not overturning AB 32 have cemented our course on a road to a great idealistic statist experiment. I can only hope that the fast approaching fiscal train wreck will serve as a warning for the rest of country.

    CARB is an example of the worst of the worst. Unelected bureaucrats, with no real world experience and with minds educated into a politically correct box, dictating how we choose to live our lives? I want to fight this. Not because I’m crazy. But, because I know they are wrong. Their scam can not stand up to the truth.

    I don’t have a choice. All of my family is here (and has been here for generations). My livelihood is here. And I don’t want to leave. My only choices at this point are to oppose the bureaucratic juggernaut or give up (i.e. move out). I’m not ready to leave quite yet.

  57. John F. Hultquist says:

    Case 1: A company builds a car that is tested and gets 20 mpg. Company submits specs to CARB that claims car gets 33 mpg.

    Case 2: Scientist submits testimony to CARB that says CO2 is not a major driver of changes in Earth’s temperature.

    Rate each of the above as false information with regard to knowingly, willfully, false, and material. Then prove it.

  58. Bob Diaz says:

    I wonder how this law will stand up against the First Amendment Rights:

    [quote]Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [b]or abridging the freedom of speech[/b], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, [b]and to petition the government for a redress of grievances[/b].[/quote]

  59. e_por says:

    You should take this opportunity and use it back against the.
    We all know where the “false” and “knowingly” information usually comes from.
    Intention is quite easy to prove nowadays (money, money, money).

  60. Brian Johnson uk says:

    899 said

    “There’s a reason why actors should never pursue political careers: They’re actors.”

    Shouldn’t that read
    “There’s a reason why actors should never be allowed to pursue political careers: They’re actors.”?

    Equally applies to Film Directors too. Will Jim Cameron try? Oh dear!

  61. RockyRoad says:

    True, Hank, but think of the mass exodus of people leaving California and spilling over into Nevada and points eastward once their economy buckles. Now that’s a scary thought!

  62. dwright says:

    This might have been said above, but it bears repeating:
    This is how totalitarianism is creeping its way into the USA
    Please America, FIGHT for the freedom that is your birthright!
    [d]

  63. Mike D. says:

    What does this mean, legally?

    In any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board, no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner with the Board or the Board’s staff…

    Does this website constitute a “communication” with CARB? I don’t mean to be facetious; my question is perfectly reasonable. How far does CARBo (Typhoid) Mary intend to take it?

  64. James Sexton says:

    Let them. Use it and turn it against them. As you know, science is vague. Skeptics, by nature will use more affirmative statements, because we don’t assert things unless there is reason to assert. Imagine if the Himalayan glacier melt statements, or the Amazon sensitivity statements made their way to CARB. Utter jibberish and falsities. That’s precedent. Expose and use. As this issue dies(CAGW), and it is, albeit slowly and loudly, they will become more shrill and extreme. No worries on our side, many worries on theirs if this comes to pass.

    My 2 cents.

  65. Brent Matich says:

    Wow! This is like the Great Canadian Human Rights Star Chamber er Commission.

    Brent in Calgary

  66. morgo says:

    the australian govt wood love this law if it gets through ,there all tomato heads all red through and through

  67. Well, I look forward to the first political prisoners in the state of California.

    But just as with Iraq, I don’t think we have thought this through to the end-game.

    Put yourself in the shoes of someone who truly believes that the planet will fry from our CO2. As the public rejects mitigations while scientists keep alarming, what do we expect these converts to say? “Oh well, it’s either individual freedom & democracy or survival of the planet. These are their only choices – what do you think they will say? “Oh well, freedom trumps planet’s survival, so I and my children will just lie down here and wait to die.” What would you do to save your children? In our history, many have laid down their lives for far smaller causes.

    In Australia, Clive Hamilton, Green candidate already proposed suspending democracy, with hardly a protest. The UN openly talks world government without much mention of democracy. From a Warmist point of view, this all makes perfect sense.

    We need to explain that warmists can not go around convincing people that skeptics are killing their children, without being responsible for the the inevitable violent political consequences.

  68. Roger Sowell says:

    I’d like to offer a small ray of hope here. I’m the same Roger E. Sowell referred to in the post above. I’m an attorney licensed in California, and we attorneys live for such contests as this new regulation will most likely provide. Mandatory disclaimer: nothing written above, nor in this comment is intended to be, nor is it, legal advice. Anyone requiring legal advice should consult a qualified attorney. Should this comment be accepted and posted on this blog, it is merely a private opinion discussing general aspects of a legal issue.

    In a criminal case, for each element of the alleged crime, the prosecution must offer admissible evidence for and prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, if any element cannot be adequately proven, there can be no conviction. That is the reason I chose to focus on the “false” requirement, as that one will be very difficult to prove for the reasons I gave above.

    An element of a crime, in this context, is each thing that must be proven for the accused person to be convicted of the crime. What I wrote in the post above actually referred to the Federal criminal statute, not the text of the California proposed regulation. The proposed regulation does not refer to Knowingly or Willfully.

    However, there is the issue of whether the communication to CARB was a statement, or was it a question, or an opinion? Also, was the communication actually a fact, or was it dressed in language to indicate there are a range of uncertainties?

    The proposed statute also uses the word fraudulent, which has in itself a long list of elements that must be proven. In short, a charge of fraud is very difficult to prove because the accused’s intent must be proved.

    However, I agree with commenters above who wrote that this regulation could have the effect of intimidating dissenters such that they will not speak or communicate to CARB. That fact, alone, could result in the law being challenged in court as a chilling effect on what should be Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution.

    It would be an interesting case, as even if all the other elements are proven to the appropriate legal standard, the “false” element may be a matter of opinion, not fact. When reputable scientists disagree, which one is to be labeled “false,” and the other “fact?” When one group agrees, and they are scientists, is another group of non-scientist dissenters not allowed to speak? The entire Climategate scandal illustrates this point. If non-scientists were muzzled, where would we be?

    What is required is some brave organization, or person, who is willing to risk incarceration if convicted, to make the case before CARB that their IPPC-following science is wrong. The 60’s are upon us again. Many a protester went to jail in the 60’s in the USA to prove the strength of their beliefs.

  69. Kforestcat says:

    Where does the CARB get-off believing that the public may not “petition the government” as a 1st amendment right? And just when did the “government” get to say what is a “dishonest statement” or otherwise suppress free speech?

    That hasn’t been my experience. Quite the contrary. I have attended countless “public meetings” as a representative of the federal government . Many of these occurred during a period when I had been loaned to the Department of Defense to manage the development, testing, and operation of a system to destroy armed chemical weapons.

    Many of these meetings were to get public feedback prior the destruction of explosively configured chemical weapons near heavily populated/highly sensitive areas. Two of these projects involved declared national emergencies in or near major cities. Agents involved included some of the deadliest know to man (sarin, mustard, and VX).

    The meetings were held for very good reasons – the public had the right to know what we planned to do and to voice ANY objections they might have. It was not at all unusual for the public to voice serious concerns. Occasionally, I knew the person making a remark was being “knowingly dishonest”. But, my personal/professional opinions was not relevant nor should they have been. Whatever, the “agenda” of the opposition; government officials do not have the right to suppress opposing views. That’s simply not how democracy works.

    The arrogance of the CARB is mind boggling. As a public servant, I am thoroughly disgusted

    Regards, Kforestcat.

  70. Ted Gray says:

    Thanks to Anthony and all of you who have made this and other great climate truth websites a place of learning, truth and honesty. It is often difficult and sometimes feels like a full time job trying to keep up will the flow of information and has kept me awake at night looking for the answers, so I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into the fantastic articles and comment’s made by contributors. It has driven me and given me hope to keep facing the AGW gang.

    OK, enough of the strokes now to some meat?

    We were warned, and we warned the people of California but billionaires and movie directors bought the day with dirty green money.

    HERE WAS THE HEADS UP ON WHAT WAS COMING FROM CARB!

    Thanks to: Co2 INSANITY – Posted – OCT 02 2010

    IF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA VOTE TO KEEP AB 32 THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER CARB MORE.

    They have based regulations upon data from a supposed PH d who it turns out has a mail-order degree, better known as fraud, read here. Don’t dare to disagree with them or it may cost you your job like this poor fellow, read here. Many refer to them as the “Smog Nazis” and it’s an appropriate title as far as I’m concerned. They are in the process of and will eventually drive a lot of businesses out of California to other states where they don’t have to deal with over-regulation.
    If California keeps heading down this path there may not be anyone around to pay the taxes that pay their salaries. It’s already costing jobs, read here. While that would be a fitting end to them, why sit and do nothing and let them ruin a whole state when they can be cut off now?
    Do you want to know more about CARB? Here’s some information about this onerous group and some of the loony things they want to do to California?

    If the citizens of California vote to keep AB 32 in force THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER THEM MORE. The government is berserk enough already and sinking into insanity territory because they keep catering to the libtard and greentard agendas. Want to stop it? Vote yes on 23 and let’s buy some time to take a better look at reality.

    For full article go to:
    http://co2insanity.com/2010/10/02/climate-dictatorships-arising-from-agw-ashes/

  71. Neil Hampshire says:

    ……no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner.
    (1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
    (3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
    materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or
    (4) omit material facts from a communication with an intent to mislead.

    Does this mean that you are not permitted to use “tricks to hide the decline”?

  72. Harry the Hacker says:

    I’m an outside, and I find it curious, the double standards of the US. There goes the US with its invasive security at airports (TSA & the naked body scanners) – where everyone is treated as a criminal. And now the threat to (effectively) lock up those with a dissenting view.

    In places like Burma or Zimbabwe, its clear who the tyrants are and the US makes a song-n-dance about democratic freedoms. And in its own backyard the US gives every impression of turning into a petty police state.

    Ah lurve the smell ahve hypocrisy in tha morning!

  73. Pete Olson says:

    Why in the hell does CARB even exist? No other state needs a CARB, which sucks the better part of a billion bucks ($759 million) from California’s budget every year to duplicate what the federal govt already does (unfortunately). This is without taking into account the millions its extreme regulations cost California residents and businesses every year. Eliminating CARB: What a great way to pare a costly, useless, and egregiously invasive entity from California’s budget.

  74. Peter Miller says:

    There is something about unelected bureaucratic organisations, which once may have had a purpose and now do not, that turn them into perpetual growth machines that:

    1. Are hostile to business
    2. Continually spew out pointless, expensive rules and regulations
    3. Try and place themselves above the law and immune from criticism
    4. Become ever more expensive, top heavy with fat cat bureaucrats

    Those who can, do. Those who can’t, become bureaucrats. Those who have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how the real world functions, become chief bureaucrats.

    CARB and the European Commission are exactly the same: administered by highly intelligent, but highly incompetent, people with their own agenda of business destruction.

  75. Richard111 says:

    What goes around comes around.
    In the not so distant past there were many battles to divorce religion from politics.
    Now politics has created a new religion.
    The result is inevitable.
    Just look at history if you can find any history books.

  76. Beth Cooper says:

    Are n’t THEY contravening the US Constitution 1st Ammendment? HOW CAN THIS BE? ‘The science is settled?’…’ We’ve got you on our list?’…’Sack that editor?’ (CRU emails.)…Where are the lawyers in support of democratic free speech, where, oh, where have they gone?

  77. UK Sceptic says:

    What would Stalin do?

  78. John Q Public says:

    This is pure comedy. This isn’t a reality series is it? Unbelievable.

  79. tallbloke says:

    CARB: “LALALALALA we can’t hear you!”

    Lol.

  80. Kev-in-UK says:

    It looks as if some of the nuttier folk in California want to be a small eco-fascist state? Perhaps the rest of you more sensible Americans fence it off, build a ‘berlin’ wall or whatever – and ignore them! Mind you, I would give the ‘good’ general public there the chance to leave first! I just feel sorry for the normal folk burdened with that kind of state government…….those that stay can expect their lives to be hell!

  81. crosspatch says:

    CARB needs to be completely de-funded. We have 50 states in the US. 49 of them get along just fine without an Air Resources Board and California can too. The problem is that the governor taking office this January is the one who created it last time he was governor so there is little chance of anything happening from his office. The legislature should completely de-fund this bureaucracy.

  82. Roger Knights says:

    This knowingly-false meme is something Monbiot harps on too. These greenshirts dwell so exclusively in their echo chambers that they think that the counterpoints-to-skeptics found on warmist sites are the last word on the matter, and that anyone who isn’t persuaded is a denier. They don’t realize how many layers to the onion-of-climate there are.

  83. Roger Longstaff says:

    If I lived in California I would be tempted to write an open letter to CARB, containing something like “There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has ever, or will in the future, significantly change the Earth’s climate”. If that forced legal proceedings they would have to produce evidence, and there is none.

    A golden opportunity?

  84. Rainer Link says:

    Note from Germany:
    Unbelievable!

    This kind of law was one basis of the NAZI/Hitler regime,
    the US fortunately liberated us from.

    May be it comes back to us again: Green dictatorship.

  85. Adolf Balik says:

    I usually use an expression “Carbonari” to denominate believers in the artificial “carbon scare”. A lot of people take it amusing. (Each one who knows basic history is familiar with the historical Carbonari movement.) Using the CARB abbreviation they directly ask to be called with the name.

  86. P Wilson says:

    Climatology is moving dangerously down the avenue of *Crimethink”

    from the Newspeak dictionary, (1984, George Orwell)

    crimethink – To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death…. The essential crime that contains all others in itself.”

    Here’as the complete dictionary

    http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

  87. 3x2 says:

    Sounds like this could back fire badly. I’m not that familiar with US law but wouldn’t any action by CARB end up in a real court? You know the sort of court that requires actual evidence rather than endlessly repeating “feel good” sound bites.

    I notice of late that the alarmist message is a general one “it’s happening faster than we thought” neatly avoiding any specifics like what “it” actually refers to. In a court this wouldn’t work.

  88. 1DandyTroll says:

    Ah, yes but how they must find it to be a true beauty that they would try to mimic it themselves . . . all hail he Chines communist system.

    We make flimsy policy as we see fit as we please. Period.

    If you want to change the policy, or if you do not want said policy, please support it with facts and empirical evidence. If you should fail to support your whining and ranting foul mouth crap with facts and empirical evidence (or if we just don’t happen to like the color of the graphs that day) know this you slime filled creeping capitalist vermin for anti-government demagogue propagandistic rebel, we stamp 30 in your forehead–30 meaning 30 years in the slammer you evil critter!

    Please have a nice day. Exit to the left. And do take our new brochure if you please.

  89. Brent Hargreaves says:

    Jimmy Haigh (20 Nov., 6:08) wrote “The only thing politicians are interested in (well, apart from money and power) is their seat. Fortunately in a democracy we (still) have the power to get rid of these idiots.”

    Too right, Jimmy! The battle for public opnion on Global Warming is vital, and has been going our way since Climategate erupted (damp squib though that was, but hey, it worked). The rational folks who visit WUWT are often flabbergasted that AGW pseudoscience has become so influential; the facts so obviously twisted and spun to serve a political agenda. But it was ALWAYS political, ever since Hansen turned the aircon off before a 1988 Senate Committe hearing, and even before that.

    An honest scientist would rather have his pet theory blown away by contrary evidence, and even find that evidence himself, than have a false theory gain currency only to later flop. The bunch of gravy-train neoapocalyptic numpties who practice Climatography are wicked charlatans; latter-day Lysenkos whose place in the history of science will be in its Hall of Shame.

    Be ye not dismayed! Even if the dark forces of Gore manage to subvert the facts for years to come, the truth will out! The pesky planet, blithely unaware of the debate raging in a very thin layer on its surface, will continue to obey the laws of physics.

    Here’s my guess at the final collapse of AGW. Some world leader in the near future will get stuck in a blizzard, will turn to his/her entourage and say the magic words: “Sod this fer a game o’ sojers!”

  90. DJ Meredith says:

    I’m wondering how it will play out if it is found that NOAA, GISS, the TEAM (be they within or without California), TV and movie producers, actors, writers, will be subject to the proposed law when it is shown that the offer of evidence for CARB regulations is based on false evidence.

    An example being the manipulation of temperature data from properly or improperly sited stations as shown by Anthony’s survey. Will the feds be exempt from CARB rules? State funded university researchers? High profile political donors…or actors?

    The funniest aspect of this is the double edged sword it creates. Submissions will have to be open to full evaluation of their validity…meaning the data, methodology, and computer programs must be open to full public scrutiny.

  91. Jaypan says:

    If NYC had such rules, Hansen were a target with his Hudson River forecast 20 years ago. Instead of complaining about it, we should help the bureaucracy and name the wrongsayers … Just kidding

  92. AJB says:

    Fascism writ large. As history tells us repeatedly, there is only one way to deal with that and it doesn’t involve playing them at their own game. Mr Sowell perhaps needs a reality check.

  93. RexAlan says:

    As Jimmy Haigh said re – Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties

    “Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.”

    “REPLY: If I can, yes.”

    I’ve just hit the tip jar to help pay for the gas.
    Go get ‘em, Anthony!

    Me too.
    RexAlan

  94. Juraj V. says:

    Nobody sued CARB for those 350% exaggeration yet?
    For victory of evil it is enough, when good people do nothing.

  95. Alexander K says:

    California’s ‘Governator’ has given up on his ambition to be president of the USA and is now, according to an article in the UK Guardian of yesterday, to be a leading conservationist when his stint as the Ruinator of California is over!!
    The land of the free? Where did that idea go?

  96. MattN says:

    Anthony, you HAVE to get out of Kalifornia before the place implodes and form a black hole…

  97. DennisA says:

    The Governator:

    “Last year we had a tremendous setback because some of the science and some of the numbers were manipulated and that is very damaging because it gives the other side a way in,” Schwarzenegger told his summit this week.

    http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10800853

    Who gets prosecuted?

  98. Neo says:

    Everytime I read something like this, I think of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall.

    In the 80’s they were viewed as crackpots and lunatics, even thrown physically out of some medical symposiums. In 2005, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

  99. Ralph says:

    How can anyone be surprised with something like this coming from CARB?

    On September 1, 2010, the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) Tire Pressure Regulation took affect. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles operating with under inflated tires by inflating them to the recommended tire pressure rating. The regulation applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Automotive service providers must meet the regulation’s following requirements:

    * Check and inflate each vehicle’s tires to the recommended tire pressure rating, with air or nitrogen, as appropriate, at the time of performing any automotive maintenance or repair service.
    * Indicate on the vehicle service invoice that a tire inflation service was completed and the tire pressure measurements after the service were performed.
    * Perform the tire pressure service using a tire pressure gauge with a total permissible error no greater than + two (2) pounds per square inch (psi).
    * Have access to a tire inflation reference that is current within three years of publication.
    * Keep a copy of the service invoice for a minimum of three years, and make the vehicle service invoice available to the ARB, or its authorized representative upon request.

    http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/tire-pressure/tire-pressure.htm

  100. crosspatch says:

    “I’m not that familiar with US law but wouldn’t any action by CARB end up in a real court?”

    Maybe not. CARB can write and approve its own regulations without approval of the legislature or any elected official. If you appeal a CARB regulation, you appeal path is to CARB. I believe Brown did a pretty good job last time he was governor at making CARB some sort of “special” bureaucracy that can approve its own regulations and judge its own complaints.

  101. Neo says:

    The counter-balance to this proposal by CARB, is that the CARB board members should be personally liable for advice that they discard.

  102. Tom in Florida says:

    Where’s Lex Luthor when we need him?

  103. lgl says:

    These guys should google the word “inquisition”
    That would give them a few ideas of how to proceed.
    Isn’t California among the United States of America any longer?

  104. Magnus A says:

    I have not listen to this by Jim Inhofe in detail, but it seems good. Mostly about EPA and Lisa Jackson though, but also about pessimism on regulations through the back door…

    Another article (may have been posted here?) :

    http://www.examiner.com/ecopolitics-in-los-angeles/climategate-anniversary-skeptics-science-prevail

  105. Paul Coppin says:

    Just now made another offering to San Andreas, the patron saint of all of us who would strive to survive…

  106. tonyb says:

    Can I recommend that people here read The Trial by Kafka. It will give you a few tipps on what madness is coming next.

    Tonyb

  107. Dave Springer says:

    Ed Caryl says:
    November 20, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    “It should be pointed out to these dolts that California has lost a million jobs while Texas has gained a million. I wonder why? I second the thought; leave while you can.”

    Yep. I was one of those back in 1993. Lived in southern Cali 18 years then when the cold war ended there were massive layoffs of engineers at defense plants – the “peace dividend”. Lots of us landed in Austin, TX which was undergoing a high tech boom. We called ourselves high tech refugees. You can’t swing a dead cat in Austin without hitting a high tech refugee from California. I expect there’ll be a new mass migration of green tech refugees and businesses relocating here. Benefits include no state income tax and a balanced budget which are both requirements of the state constitution.

  108. Bruce Cobb says:

    lgl says:
    November 21, 2010 at 4:55 am

    These guys should google the word “inquisition”
    That would give them a few ideas of how to proceed.
    Isn’t California among the United States of America any longer?

    Nobody ever expects the Green Inquisition

  109. James Sexton says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I’m pretty sure CARB doesn’t trump federal Constitutional law.

  110. Dave Springer says:

    By the way, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has vowed to defy the EPA should they attempt to regulate CO2 emission. Perry was reelected this month to another 4 year term by a large majority and he was prior to the election already the longest serving governor the state has ever had. Perry is so sick of federal government in Washington, D.C. he makes tea party luminary Sarah Palin look like an admirer of big government.

    It’ll be interesting to see a showdown between the EPA and Texas that’s for sure. If Texas were a country it would have the 15th largest national economy in the world and its economy is still humming along nicely despite the recession. Every statewide elected office is held by a Republican and there are large Republican majorities in both state house and senate. It’s been that way for a long time. You know what they say, if it isn’t broken don’t try to fix it. If the blue states of America or the federal government had any common sense they’d try to emulate Texas and thereby hope to achieve the same level of success.

    My other “home” state beside California and Texas is New York. I’m not sure if New York is doing any better than California. They’re both dysfunctional. I’m from rural upstate New York and everyone I know there always has and still continues to blame all New York State’s problems on New York City which is generally viewed as a hopeless quagmire of crime and corruption. Upstate New York is a great place to live if you don’t mind plenty of snow in the winter and can tolerate the high taxes which are higher now than ever. I miss the starkly beautiful white winters and autumn colors a little bit but not nearly enough to endure the confiscatory tax policy. But hey, at least they don’t have to call Hillary Clinton “The Senator from New York” anymore which is a change I can believe in.

  111. James Sexton says:

    AndiC says:
    November 20, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Just thinking from Down-Under, but isn’t this proposal in direct contravention of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights?

    Bob Diaz says:
    November 20, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    I wonder how this law will stand up against the First Amendment Rights:
    =======================================================
    I guess I could have read all of the posts first, but you guys are right, it is in direct opposition to the First amendment, by my estimation.

    BTW, Bob, instead of “[” use “<"

  112. Henry chance says:

    Can we get this law to cover the New Jersey charges against Michael Mann?

    It goes both ways.

  113. JohnM says:

    This is how it works all over the world.
    Plant your seeds beneath the surface and let them germinate.
    When they start to grow, you hoe the other plants that compete with them.
    Democracy does not count because they are not elected, they are appointed.
    You didn’t get to vote for them because they are almost unelectable on their own.
    It’s getting to be like that in many “democratic” countries.
    Green and Red get into the same bed and the offspring of the relationship are no longer people, just soldiers fighting the life-long socialist war with a green tint.
    You cannot fight them with democracy because they sneer at the ballot box.

  114. pyromancer76 says:

    I think the solution is simple; all it requires is more tea. Federal tea stops growing deficits, develops financial responsibility, and closes borders. State tea involves choosing which bureaucracies to eliminate because there is no funding for them, “truing” the vote, and requiring both citizenship and work for any state assistance. Yes, it will be difficult, but since Gov. Moonbeam will be broke, I am looking forward to the future even though I live in Kalifornia. More power to you, Anthony. I hope you can help turn CARB’s proposed regulations against it/them — those nutty fascist-marxists.

  115. londo says:

    For those of you who haven’t seen the movie “Brazil” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/), now is the time to do it. What used to be a Orwellian black comedy in the eighties is quickly becoming reality. Our society needs a gigantic wakeup kick in the but before it is too late.

  116. Pamela Gray says:

    Communism by any other name…

  117. gnomish says:

    Slabadang called 1/2 of it.
    The other half is who paid for it.
    Just admit it – it’s the first step in the road to recovery.
    The second step is Tea in the Bay.
    Chat is cheap, while you keep paying and don’t have the moral fiber to Just Say No – and mean it.

  118. gnomish says:

    Your’e not there yet. You have elected governor moonbeam, father of ebonics.
    Take responsibility and stop the useless whining or go down as you have worked for, paid for and richly deserve.
    Bye bye USA – once you were a beacon of liberty. Now you just clench and kill the hamsters. It was your choice.

  119. Starbuck says:

    Will I get in trouble for commenting?[probably . . but not from us . . mod]

  120. Olen says:

    California is the soon to be banana republic leading the way.

    Doesn’t there have to be harm inflicted for there to be a crime and penalty? And isn’t there something about reasonable. Damned if I know but then California creates its own reality.
    Their argument is weak and they need to be the only voice the public, which is struggling to survive thanks to these same people, hears. This is intimidation by government with the intent to silence opposition which is a crime.

    In fairness though it seems to be a widely used tactic these left wing socialists, with no ability except to wreck the country, are using.

  121. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    I heartily agree with Gail Combs and DJ Meredith. Modify the law so that it applies to the CARB, the IPCC, the GISS, the CRU, and the TEAM. After is passes, everyone hit the tip jar as hard as possible, and sue them all! We need a Scopes Monkey Trial to expose how fraudulent data is used to pass spurious environmental regulations around the world. I’d love to see the entire gang hoist by their own petard!

  122. DaveB says:

    “And of course it’s OK to simply demote a CARB “scientist” who lied about his PhD degree obtained from a UPS store rather than fire his fraudulent bureaucratic butt and then stage a cover up about it. ”

    This so called “scientist” upon being demoted subsequently crashed a test vehicle destroying over $300K worth of equipment. This is also part of the cover-up.

  123. mike g says:

    The more I see about people like the woman who controls CARB and other radical warmist organizations, the more I’m reminded of the smug nazi bastards in the Indiana Jones movies and many other movies portraying this personality type.

    We truly have as much to fear from Mary Nichols, and those like her, as the world should have feared Hitler and his disciples in the late twenties and early thirties.

    This is truly my opinion. So, it is not “Knowingly” “Willfully” “False” “Material”. I think I’m safe speaking my opinion. But, for how much longer. And, when they reach the position his disciples had reached by the late thirties, will opinions like this be used to help rid the world of my carbon footprint?

  124. Gail Combs says:

    Layne Blanchard says:
    November 20, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    The problem is: The People’s Republic of Kalifornia is a huge portion of the US economy.

    It is now a cancer eating away at the country from within. If enough of us cannot stand together, drive the right agenda at the federal level, and eventually forcibly halt this self destroying progression, CA threatens to take out the whole country.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    California is about 13% of the GDP of the USA
    CA = 1,739,674 million 2005 dollars
    USA = 12,903,778 million 2005 dollars
    SEE: http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/action.cfm

    California is 4% of the land area:
    CA is 163,695.57 sq miles
    USA is 3,794,083.06 sq miles

    California has 12% of the US population
    CA has 36,961,664 people
    USA has 306,406,893 people
    (2010 Census figures)

    If productive people leave California in droves as they are currently doing they will bring their contribution to the US GDP with them. Hopefully they will leave behind the deadbeats who do not work and the seriously warped with their unrealistic views of how MY money should be spent.

  125. mike g says:

    @James Sexton

    BTW, the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure they couldn’t just ignore the first amendment.

  126. Gail Combs says:

    fhsiv says:
    “…..I don’t have a choice. All of my family is here (and has been here for generations). My livelihood is here. And I don’t want to leave. My only choices at this point are to oppose the bureaucratic juggernaut or give up (i.e. move out). I’m not ready to leave quite yet.”
    __________________________________________________
    As someone in California, would you agree that California should not be bailed out and since their politicians, with their blessings, made the mess they are in then they therefore should be required to fix it or live with the results?

  127. dkkraft says:

    There is enough diversity of scientific opinion (see Mr. Sowell’s “fairly fuzzy” quote) that CARB could defend virtually anything.

    Therefore under this regulation the following statement would be prohibited:

    “CARB has made an error”

    No amount of backup support would mitigate the criminality of the statement.

    In other words CARB is incapable of error and it is criminal for a person to submit a statement to the contrary. That is the purpose of this regulation.

  128. mike g says:

    @Gail Combs

    Too late, we’re already massively bailing out California and the other big deadbeat states, too. This from poster Pat in Tips and Notes to WUWT:

    …intended to post a few excerpts, but couldn’t find a single paragraph that didn’t contain something useful. So here’s the whole thing:State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun
    http://www.safehaven.com/article/18810/will-bailing-out-the-states-tank-the-dollar

  129. Paul Richards says:

    Anthony

    Actually, US Code 18 sub 1001 makes it a felony for any agent of the FEDERAL government to make false or fraudulent statements, not a member of the public.

  130. Nick says:

    The kalifornia Dreamers that elect the fools to Sacramento will deserve the
    harsh times comming to kalifornia!

  131. Gail Combs says:

    Harry the Hacker says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    I’m an outside, and I find it curious, the double standards of the US….

    Ah lurve the smell have hypocrisy in tha morning!
    _____________________________________________________________
    Harry, very well said. You have pointed out the reason the Tea Party came into existence and why the Rasmussen polls show those of us in the USA have no faith in our politicians.

    Voters Believe Overwhelmingly That Politicians Don’t Keep Their Promises, and Most Say It’s Deliberate
    “With the campaign season in full swing, voters are more cynical than ever about the promises politicians make on the campaign trail. But Democrats are far more trusting than Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 81% of Likely U.S. Voters now say that most politicians do not keep their campaign promises. That’s up five points from 76% in November of last year. (To see survey question wording, click here).

    Only seven percent (7%) think most do keep their campaign promises….”

    I think, especially with the internet, you are going to see voters in the USA keeping much closer tabs on there Reps and screaming when said Reps betray them. That is one reason why the Democrats vilify the Tea Party and the Republicans are trying to engulf them.

    The tea party is a wild card not “directed” by the power elite as the official parties and the UN NGOs are. The last thing the power elite want is for ordinary citizens to wake-up, lift up the rug and see the nasty treasonous mess that is the REAL US politics.

    Quote from: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/voters_believe_overwhelmingly_that_politicians_don_t_keep_their_promises_and_most_say_it_s_deliberate

  132. Graeme says:

    jae says:
    November 20, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    Hey, the Californicators are going for the Guiness Book of Records for the Nonsense category. Too bad that the idiots will soon be bankrupt and begging the rest of the Nation for help. California’s majority (liberals/demos/mouth-breathing welfare recipients/illegal aliens) constitutes the perfect example of cognitive dissonance. I hope I don’t have to keep bailing out those morons, but until January, I probably will….

    QE3 is already in the works for 2011, Ben’s printing press will run overtime to bail out the states and the municipalities, QE4 for 2012…

  133. Gail Combs says:

    Peter Miller says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    There is something about unelected bureaucratic organisations, which once may have had a purpose and now do not, that turn them into perpetual growth machines that:…..
    ____________________________________________________
    Peter you almost have it correct. Bureaucratic Agencies are extremely toxic to SMALL businesses. Major corporations generally place their own people in as high ranking bureaucrats and therefore get a pass for breaking the rules while small businesses are bankrupted.
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/208403-wall-street-and-government-revolving-door-spins-at-dizzying-pace

  134. WA777 says:

    I have CARB’s “proposed regulation” filed with “No Pressure” under Totalitarianism.

  135. Paul Richards says:

    Anthony,

    Actually, US Code 18 sub 1001 only applies to federal AGENTS, not to the general public.

  136. Graeme says:

    Magnus A says:
    November 20, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    Has this one been posted? Well, I guess that Arnold can’t be mocked too much nowadays.

    Maybe Arnold had a reverse epiphany.

  137. Graeme says:

    major says:
    November 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    Only if the law includes unfounded or dishonest statements submitted by Global Warming wackjobs (of which there are thousands)……in any case we have to be prepared to legally preempt and prosecute the CARB…..Arnold is complete fool and has completely failed the constituents who voted him in to fix things.

    Could this law be tested with the following submission “The glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035″!

    One could submit the last IPCC report???

  138. JohnM says:

    now, if CARBs new laws also apply to internet blogging sites……..
    So much easier to threaten the blog service providers.
    And as for politicians; I don’t know much about the USA ones, but in the UK we have three major parties (well, two big ones and one smaller sniveling one) that are only distinguishable by their “colours”.
    One blue, another sorta red and the smaller one orangey….
    Quite frankly the relationship between them is incestuous and means they all tend to be the same….a sorta wishy-washy greeny-red-blue-orange sorta colour…all with expensive green policies that are unachievable and expensive.
    Gasoline is $1.91 per imperial gallon…and going up 5% next Jan…
    Gas (methane) for heating is about 11 cents (US) for one kwh (going up 7% immediately in spite of a $3.19 billion profit)
    Not to worry: Come the revolution (sic)

  139. Bill says:

    This statist mentality of Arnold and his CARB is the same thing that is behind the plans to depopulate large portions of the country and return them to a wilderness state, off limits to most of the public, for the large predators, wolves and mountain lions, and native vegetative species. These people are very dangerous to our future.

  140. Ed Scott says:

    AndiC says:
    Just thinking from Down-Under, but isn’t this proposal in direct contravention of the first amendment and the Bill of Rights?

    ——————————————————–

    Speaker Pelosie says: “Are you serious?:

    ———————————————————–

    Obviously the farther one is removed from the Beltway, the less understanding one has of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in relation to the Ruling Class.

    These documents provide only rough guide-lines and suggestions to our elected representatives. In addition, our Declaration of Independence, which appears in the US Code, states that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights” has no relevance to an atheistic government.

  141. Graeme says:

    Rainer Link says:
    November 21, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Note from Germany:
    Unbelievable!

    This kind of law was one basis of the NAZI/Hitler regime,
    the US fortunately liberated us from.

    May be it comes back to us again: Green dictatorship.

    It always comes back, it never dies, it never rests, the lust for dominion is always present, and freedom requires continuous vigilance and sacrifice, as the default state for humanity is enslavement, the potential for humanity is of course – conscious adult liberty – but it requires courage and effort to attain and maintain it.

  142. curly says:

    For all you folks who have faith in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, consider that challenges to CARB Fascism would have to make it through the US Ninth Circuit (circus) Court. You can read for yourselves what extreme wackos occupy those powerful positions.

    Then on to the US Supreme Court who ruled that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant if I’m not mistaken, and has recently been padded with judicial lightweights and true believers (Kagan and Sotomayor).

    All you “reasonable”, “fair” moderates, “independents”, and Demo voters feeling good now that you couldn’t vote for Repubs because they were “too extreme”?

    Good chance that you’ve voted away your civil rights. Think the ACLU will come marching to your rescue?

  143. Rocket Science says:

    So the Emporator thinks he has some new clothes. Shame he forgot the thermal underwear.

  144. erik sloneker says:

    “Also, this could easily be turned around on CARB, by asserting that the “science” they relied on in many of their regulations was false information, knowingly and willfully presented. ”

    That is exactly how one fights a regulation like this. Force them to demonstrate the “truthfulness” of everything they base their regulations on.

  145. grayman says:

    The CARB board has been around now for 40 odd yrs, created for the purpose of the smog problem in the LA area if my memory serves me correctly. So far the problem has not gone away nor slacked off, the smog is there for all time. Go back in the native historys and you will see that the indians had the same smog problem then. CARB has come up with some good regulations to help combat pollution has is thier mission but the power that they seem to keep getting from were no one knows is getting out of hand to say the least. IMO they need to be raned in on a short leash and reminded of thier original purpose and get back to it!!!

  146. Paddy says:

    Since when and where does a CA administrative agency get the authority to adopt rules that define and punish conduct it declares to be criminal? This power resides exclusively in the legislature. CARB’s proposed rule is usurpation of legislative authority by an executive agency. This proposed rule is unconstitutional for two reasons: violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a void attempt to formulate public policy.

  147. RichieP says:

    JohnM says:
    November 21, 2010 at 9:40 am
    ‘Gasoline is $1.91 per imperial gallon’

    Er no, not at all. Don’t you mean per litre? That’s what I’m paying in SE England. Per (uk) gallon that would be $5.08 or so (though, unlike some climate scientists, I’m quite prepared to have my calculations challenged).

  148. Smokey says:

    The result of Arnold’s and the Democrat Legislature’s state government policies: click

  149. Steven Mosher says:

    well,

    I suppose they open themselves up for some dilemmas.

    If a CAGW person writes them a bunch of false stuff and a skeptic does
    and they only persue cases against skeptics…

    Seems like one could fill their inbox with all sorts of nonsense from the “sierra club.”

    I wonder how they would react to a spamming campaign of CAGW stuff

  150. crosspatch says:

    Since when and where does a CA administrative agency get the authority to adopt rules that define and punish conduct it declares to be criminal? This power resides exclusively in the legislature.

    Unless the legislature gives that power up to the agency as was done. This is part of the overall “progressive” agenda to put more power in the hands of career bureaucrats who can not be thrown out of office for their decisions. The only way to de-fang the agency is to de-fund it because regulations often prevent outright firing of them.

    People have been rising up against them:

    http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

  151. 1DandyTroll says:

    I seem to have forgot to ask the obvious: Wasn’t Dr Terminator supposed to be a republican, you know one of the supposedly rational people?

    I really hoped, but alas it probably should’ve been obvious that a former steroid abuser would end up acting paradoxically to his official political belief. Most steroid abusers say they aren’t affected by the steroids it’s just a myth, I just usually ask when was the last time you looked yourself in the mirror?

  152. George Lawson says:

    The real question is , who will follow Fuhrer Schwarnzennegar and will he be of the same Ilk? That surely is the the most important question if there is to be any hope for the future for CA.

  153. Richard Sharpe says:

    Smokey says on November 21, 2010 at 10:24 am

    The result of Arnold’s and the Democrat Legislature’s state government policies: click

    Well, this seems to be more a case of what is Texas doing right rather that CA is doing things wrong because CA is not the worst in percentage terms and there are some nine other large states that have experienced job losses …

    However, I am prepared to put it down to big government.

  154. Dave Springer says:

    curly says:
    November 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

    re; lifetime federal court appointments

    At least you can choose to move out of the 9th circuit. There’s no way to escape the supreme court.

    You probably know all the below by heart but others might not.

    This judiciary branch can always be changed by constitutional amendment if they can anger enough of the states or the congress enough of the time. A fast-track appeal process where a state legislature can appeal a supreme court ruling to the legislatures of all the other states and if a 66% majority of the states agree then the ruling is overturned.

    Two thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention anytime. Never been done before but it’s there for a purpose which I figure is it reserves ultimate power to the states and to the people. In a constitutional convention congress is cut out of the decision loop and where either amendment process is used the executive and judicial are of course cut out of the loop.

    So you need 33 state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention where an amendment or amendments are floated to all 50 state legislatures Anything that 38 of those legislatures can agree on becomes a ratified amendment.

    Congressional approval rating has been down in the dirt for years and dipping into the teens which suggests the needed numbers might be there to just cut them off at the knees and make some changes to the constitution with them out of the loop on it.

    For one I’d like to see the commerce and general welfare clauses clarified and narrowed so it doesn’t apply to virtually anything the federal government wants to control. Grandfather entrenched federal entitlement programs for social security and medicare and make it so any grand unlimited power grabs like those in the future can only be enacted by constitutional amendment.

    These things which strengthen states rights should be quite appealing to state legislatures as it basically takes power away from centralized government and gives it to them. Why would any state legislature object to increasing its own power to make decisions about the people they represent?

    Time for a constitutional convention methinks. Maybe the Tea Party can get the ball rolling given how the lamestream media hangs on their every word. All it would take really, is a tweet from Sarah Palin for gosh sakes, to get the word out everywhere instantly. You betcha.

    Just sayin…

  155. Mike of FTG says:

    Adam says:
    November 20, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.

    REPLY: If I can, yes.

    Take the Hummer.

  156. Bengt Abelsson says:

    well, G Galileo was nearly beheaded for his heresy. Any religion will defend its core beliefs.
    Beware of the red buttons.

  157. crosspatch says:

    “Wasn’t Dr Terminator supposed to be a republican”

    CARB was created by Jerry Brown last time he was governor decades ago. For people who might not know, Brown has again been elected governor. There is no chance of getting rid of CARB.

    Also, the legislative districts underwent severe gerrymandering in the 1980’s which eliminated many Republican districts so there are many fewer Republican seats in the legislature now than there were in, say, the 1970’s.

  158. Mike from Canmore says:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/charity+with+plenty+very+long+tentacles/3859570/story.html

    Anthony:
    This may have already been mentioned but this is what we are faced with up here in BC.
    It is the principle reasons I am getting more involved in provincial politics, (that and my wife won’t let us move south of the border). These people are Opportunity Thieves. They are stealing our children’s future opportunities and liberties. I can’t help but think Tides et al would be behind a lot of CARB’s activities. Lori Culbert at the Vancouver Sun already exposed (http://www.vancouversun.com/life/money+drives+social+change/3371272/story.html) them earlier this summer. The Post article expands it.

    If you want to know where a political party’s money came from, look to where our money is going. Here in BC a lot of our tax money is going into green energy subsidies.

    It is just more evidence the green movement is not about the environment but wealth redistribution.

  159. Dave Springer says:

    Good reading here on history and process of calling for constitional conventions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    I hadn’t really been aware (mabye once was but had forgotten) how close it has come in the past especially in recent decades for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment.

    The article also points out that historically speaking congress has chickened out on many ocassions when calls for constitutional conventions got uncomfortably close to the magic number of 34 states and pre-empted by instead proposing the amendment through a 66% vote of congress instead. At least that way congress retains a modicum of control by authoring the language of the amendment. I wasn’t aware of that historical tidbit or had forgotten it since taking Political Science 101 thirty-five years ago.

  160. Steve in SC says:

    The rest of the “57 states” need to expel California or secede as it were.

  161. David A. Evans says:

    RichieP says:
    November 21, 2010 at 10:22 am

    JohnM says:
    November 21, 2010 at 9:40 am
    ‘Gasoline is $1.91 per imperial gallon’

    Er no, not at all. Don’t you mean per litre? That’s what I’m paying in SE England. Per (uk) gallon that would be $5.08 or so (though, unlike some climate scientists, I’m quite prepared to have my calculations challenged).

    I calculate it closer to $8.60 US

    DaveE.

  162. Richard Sharpe says:

    This could be why governments are focussed on ‘green’ strategies:

    Gold is where you find it: CALPERS is focussed on ‘Green’ investing to increase its returns and reduce its underfunding ration

    Governments forcing us to pay CO2 taxed could be their sleight-of-hand way of fixing up the imprudent pension promises they made to (unionised) public employees.

    Don’t let it happen.

  163. ann r says:

    Looks like a great free speech case for Pacific Legal Foundation!

  164. crosspatch says:

    “I hadn’t really been aware (mabye once was but had forgotten) how close it has come in the past especially in recent decades for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment.”

    You don’t need a convention to propose an amendment. Congress can do that. The problem (well, one of the problems) is that around the early 1900’s the Senate was changed from being appointed by the state legislatures to being elected at large. That basically transferred the political power in the Senate from the States to whichever political machine controls the largest metro area in the state. The state governments then lost their check on federal power and things have become unbalanced as a result. So Los Angeles controls California’s Senate delegation rather than the state legislature. In the past, the Senate would push back against federal unfunded mandates because the states would “fire” any Senator that voted for it when their term expired. This is no longer the case.

    What we really need to do is go back to at least one Senator from each state being appointed by the state legislature, even if the other is elected by the people. The state governments need some input on the federal government.

  165. crosspatch says:

    Oh, and I also wanted to say that once you call a convention, the entire constitution is available for re-writing. You don’t just amend it during a convention, you create an entirely new one and that is one Pandora’s box I don’t want opened at this point.

  166. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    To paraphrase Anthony, “Kneel before Zod!”

    1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I kinda think we are covered against this sort of nonsense.

  167. Rob B says:

    It is a bit ironic that this agency, being singularly responsible for discouraging automobile manufacturers from putting diesel motors in cars in the US, is likely largely responsible for perhaps 50% of the CO2 emissions by cars in the US. And at a cost to the economy of…..?

    I was recently in the UK and saw a news report that 70% of the new cars being sold were diesels. A colleague with a diesel version of an identical model available in the US was getting somewhere north of 50 mpg or about twice what one would get in a gasoline burning model on this side of the Atlantic!

    How do we get the lunacy of this agency exposed and it impact on the entire US reversed?

  168. R. de Haan says:

    More strange idea’s about “skeptics”.
    Swiss Academy of Science: Skepticsm is scientific unless it comes from climate skeptics.
    http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/21/swiss-academy-of-sciences-swiss-academy-of-sciences-skepticism-is-scientific-unless-it-comes-from-climate-skeptics/

  169. crosspatch says:

    “How do we get the lunacy of this agency exposed and it impact on the entire US reversed?”

    The ultimate way is to simply leave the state. The only population growth that California is experiencing currently is from immigration from outside the country. Native born Americans are leaving at a greater rate than they are arriving. For the first time since statehood, California will not gain a house seat from a census. So basically, the political influence of California has peaked while the political influence of other states such as Texas is growing and states such as New York and Pennsylvania are seeing their influence wane as they gain or lose House seats as the case may be.

    Ronald Reagan said that the people should be free to vote with their feet and apparently they are.

  170. Gail Combs says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 21, 2010 at 11:31 am

    curly says:
    November 21, 2010 at 9:53 am

    re; lifetime federal court appointments

    At least you can choose to move out of the 9th circuit. There’s no way to escape the supreme court.

    You probably know all the below by heart but others might not…..
    __________________________________________________________________
    David thank you for the information.

    I too would love to see Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of the Commerce Clause, reversed. That has to be the worst ruling ever made by the supreme court as far as its effects on the every day life of Americans.

    “The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:

    [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

    As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?'” ….”
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

  171. Policyguy says:

    Anthony,

    ARB legal says it is aimed at importers filing reports on their out-of-state activities, like producing ethanol for use in CA gasoline.

    It should probably be narrowed to that end.

  172. E.M.Smith says:

    California offered $10 Billion of bonds for sail (IIRC the quantity correctly) last week or so. The offering was only 60% subscribed when it ought to have been way over subscribed and the interest rate was rocketing upward. The “Bond Bullies” are not interesting in funding the nonsense in California.

    With revenues dropping a startling rates and the credit card getting cut back, there is little hope for California to continue this kind of stupidity. The only hope was a Fed bail out, and with Republicans in the House, that’s now a dead duck too….

    Only options I can see as likely are:

    1) The Fed buys California bonds. (Unlikely)
    2) California collapses and does a reset (most likely, but takes a decade or so).
    3) California “gets clue” and votes in folks with an understanding of economics. (Hah!)

    I expect #2 expedited by a new round of taxes under Governor Moonbeam as they desperately slide down The Dark Side Of The Laffer Curve… eventually ending in fiscal collapse, bankruptcy, and defunding of a few hundred agencies. Hopefully CARB among them…

    From: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59766N20091008

    California Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s office said on Thursday it priced a total of $4.138 billion of general obligation bonds in its sale of the debt this week, less than the $4.5 billion it had put up for sale.

    Despite falling short, Lockyer said in a statement the sale’s total was a “significant accomplishment” in what he termed a “cold and inhospitable market” this week.

    They couldn’t get it all sold, and the interest paid had to rise a lot to get that much moved… The eventual goal is $14 Billion … so 4 down and 10 to go… Rates will rise apace…

    As far as I’m concerned, the faster they do stupid things like this and totally destroy the State economy, the better. It will be over that much sooner.

    (BTW, teachers are currently taking a half dozen or more “furlough” days – that is, unpaid days off – as the State has no money to pay them. Further, we have cities like Governor Moonbeam’s present “Gig” in Oakland proposing “Industrial Scale Marijuana Farms” in the hopes that selling dope can pay the bills (they can’t pay their cops at the moment… though with the city being the Old Dope Grower, one wonders what the cops are doing…)

    http://globalganjareport.com/content/oakland-approves-industrial-marijuana-farm-measure

    “California, The Land Of Fruits and Nuts!”…

    FWIW, I’ve started moving some of my operations out of state. Have a place and car in another state now, working on the legalities and paperwork… Anything I do that generates significant income will NOT be in California. Welcome to The Laffer Curve…

    If you generate income in this state via things like, oh, a web site or book sales, I suggest a corporation in another state and only paying to yourself (resident here) any profit left over after the ‘travel and expense’ bills are paid…

  173. Dave N says:

    I’m wondering who decides whether or not something is false. Are these going to be regulations that can be fought out in court (if CARB decide to fine someone)? A fair trial could see CARB become more of a mockery than it already is.

  174. JohnM says:

    RichieP
    You’re quite right: Bad day !
    $8.63 per imperial gallon, is that $10.36 per US gallon ?
    Still a bad day, and late now !

  175. Noblesse Oblige says:

    I would not be too sure about there not being a federal bailout. Consider this scenario.
    Sometime in the next two years, California falls into a financial crisis. The administration positions the issue as “California is too big to fail” and puts together a financial package, coupled to “reforms” in order to make it politically viable to a disapproving Republican House. Of course the reforms will be meaningless and not likely to be implemented anyway. The media reports the administration’s position in a favorable light, emphasizing the national scope of a failing California economy. Republicans are caught between being held up as responsible for such a broad negative impact on the one hand and acceding to the tea party demands to hold the line on the other.

  176. JohnM says:

    Oh, and 75% of that is tax !
    With another tax added (VAT) that is calculated on the fuel PRICE, plus the fuel TAX.
    So we pay tax on a tax !

  177. juanslayton says:

    Adolf Balik
    I usually use an expression “Carbonari” to denominate believers in the artificial “carbon scare”.

    I dunno, Adolf. I’d suggest “Carbophobes,” “carbophobic.” Same root, though….

  178. crosspatch says:

    The administration positions the issue as “California is too big to fail” and puts together a financial package, coupled to “reforms” in order to make it politically viable to a disapproving Republican House.

    I don’t believe that will happen. The card that will be played is “the citizens of the other 49 states are taxed enough without having to be forced to subsidize the California legislature’s inability to live within its means”.

    In other words, the citizens of every other state will, in effect, pay California state taxes in addition to their own state and federal tax. It isn’t going to happen. There is no way the taxpayers of Texas or Florida or even New York will agree to bailing out the California legislature.

  179. crosspatch says:

    FWIW, I’ve started moving some of my operations out of state.

    You aren’t the only one. Three times more operations either left the state or expanded outside the state as of September of this year than left in 2009.

    http://thebusinessrelocationcoach.blogspot.com/2010/09/144-companies-shrink-from-calif-this_21.html

  180. Cy Dwynder says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 21, 2010 at 5:42 pm “I don’t believe that will happen.”

    I hope you are right. But a lot of favors are owed to the political class in California, and there is already a backdoor bailout in progress via the Build America Bonds gig; see
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575621062239887650.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  181. jae says:

    Ha, ha, ha, ha. Sorry Anthony, but it’s rather fun to watch Caleeeeforinication screw itself, thereby showing the rest of the USA what will happen to us if we continue to believe in “hope and change and socialism.”

    I will fight hard to keep the more saner part of the USA from bailing the morons of CA out!!

  182. I don’t weather to laugh or fear.

  183. mike g says:

    What gets me is how crafty the people of California are in their stupidity.

    Jerry Brown is an idiot, who will be a prime target for a recall referendum when things inevitably get worse. Knowing that, they had the foresight to elect Gavin Newsom as lieutenant governor.

    Now, no matter how bad things get, nobody in their right mind will try to recall Brown because Newsom is so much farther out there in looney tunes land.

    This was a stroke of sheer genius!

  184. Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?

    Chicken Little?

  185. Kforestcat says:

    Dear Dave Springer & crosspatch

    I don’t really want to encourage a side discussion on removing Supreme Court Justices; but, that said you proposed solution is a bit over the top.

    Under current law, justice(s) can be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. Historically only one justice was impeached by the House (Samuel Chase in 1805). Chase was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan Federalist leanings affect his court decisions. He was acquitted by the Senate.

    Hence, Congress can remove any Supreme Court which is perceived to vary radically from the will of the nation. Or as President Jackson did, simply ignore the court altogether see Worcester vs. Georgia (1832). (Jackson ejected my mother’s half of the family, members of the Cherokee Nation, out of Tennessee to Oklahoma, via the trail of tears. Most of the family escaped; but, that’s another story).

    Anyway, a much simpler approach to EPA vs Massachusetts is to simply have Congress clarify that the Clean Air Act shall not be used to regulated greenhouse gases .

    Regards, Kforestcat

  186. Richard Sharpe says:

    mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    What gets me is how crafty the people of California are in their stupidity.

    Jerry Brown is an idiot, who will be a prime target for a recall referendum when things inevitably get worse. Knowing that, they had the foresight to elect Gavin Newsom as lieutenant governor.

    Now, no matter how bad things get, nobody in their right mind will try to recall Brown because Newsom is so much farther out there in looney tunes land.

    This was a stroke of sheer genius!

    Hmmm, that does not make sense. In the last recall election, I am sure you remember it, Bustemante did not get to be governor. Arnold did.

  187. juanslayton says:

    Richard Sharpe:
    Thanx. Mike had me scared there for a minute.

  188. mike g says:

    @sharpe

    Cruz Boostthemoney ran a strong second. I doubt Arnold will participate in the next one.

  189. Rational Debate says:

    Franky, I’d like to see this:

    There is a Federal law at 18 USC 1001, that provides for a fine and up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully providing false information of a material fact, among several other things, to any part of the Federal government.

    turned around so we have an additional law along those exact same lines making it similarly illegal for the President or any of his appointees or direct representatives (Gibbs, etc), or any members of congress and their direct spokespersons, or any candidate for public office, to knowingly provide false information to USA citizens. With, of course, an exception for wartime ‘disinformation’ or other information thought to be necessary for national security. To that end, they could have the same federal courts that handle national security issues handle any issues of lies claimed necessary for nat’l security purposes, so it can be safely determined if nat’l security really was an issue in those cases.

  190. I have not read this all yet–I assume that burning at the stake (or maybe stoning) is the punishment.

    [One must first pass the dunk test: If a skeptic doesn't drown, she must be a witch and can be burned at the stake. Stoning is for crimes against fidelity, and can only be assigned those who tell the truth. 8<) Robt]

  191. crosspatch says:

    “Dear Dave Springer & crosspatch”

    I never commented on removing Supreme Court justices. I did comment on returning the Senate to its original configuration by modifying the 17th amendment with a new amendment that returns at least one of the Senators from each state to appointment by the legislature to give the state governments back their check on the federal government.

  192. Rational Debate says:

    As to the proposed CARB regulation – does anyone know for sure if it were implemented, would members of the public then be able to sue a member of CARB if they presented false information to the rest of CARB? Or would a member of the public lack ‘standing’ in court?

  193. Rational Debate says:

    The ‘devolution’ of Arnold really has been awfully saddening to see. I thought he showed a lot of promise originally, and now it seems he’s been utterly co-opted by ‘green & AGW’ and at the same time completely unable to untangle some of the legislative nightmare that makes it so difficult for Ca to resolve much of anything. I have no idea if as Gov. its virtually impossible to fix the legislative tangle, or if he just wasn’t able to do so himself.

  194. Richard Sharpe says:

    mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    @sharpe

    Cruz Boostthemoney ran a strong second. I doubt Arnold will participate in the next one.

    I don’t think Arnold should run either, since he has not actually been very effective at dealing with the excesses of this predecessors and their pandering to public sector unions.

    Unfortunately Ronald is dead … and the Republicans seem unable to field a worthy candidate.

  195. Rational Debate says:

    As to hoping that there won’t be any federal bailout of California or similar states…. unfortunately it sounds as if that is already occurring.

    I’m not even referring to stimulus bucks, which we all know aren’t being spread around evenly, and of course are subsidizing unemployment etc., which means states like Ca with higher unemployment because of over-regulation, etc., are getting more federal taxpayer $$’s…

    A Wall Street Journal article, State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun, covers federal bailouts of states that I suspect most folks aren’t aware of (I sure wasn’t):

    State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun
    Bond subsidies and transfers have allowed states to avoid making tough decisions. It won’t last.

    –snip–…What this panel and so many other investors fail to appreciate is that state bailouts have already begun. Over 20% of California’s debt issuance during 2009 and over 30% of its debt issuance in 2010 to date has been subsidized by the federal government in a program known as Build America Bonds. Under the program, the U.S. Treasury covers 35% of the interest paid by the bonds. Arguably, without this program the interest cost of bonds for some states would have reached prohibitive levels.

    California is not alone: Over 30% of Illinois’s debt and over 40% of Nevada’s debt issued since 2009 has also been subsidized with these bonds. These states might have already reached some type of tipping point had the federal program not been in place.

    Beyond debt subsidies, general federal government transfers to states now stand at the highest levels on record. Traditionally, state revenues were primarily comprised of sales, personal and corporate income taxes. Over the years, however, federal government transfers have subsidized business-as-usual state spending not covered by state tax collections. Today, more than 28% of state funding comes from federal government transfers, the highest contribution on record.

    These transfers have made states dependent on federal assistance. New York, for example, spent in excess of 250% of its tax receipts over the last decade. The largest 15 states by GDP spent on average over 220% of their tax receipts. Clearly, states have been spending at unsustainable levels without facing immediate consequences due to federal transfer payments and other temporary factors.

    At the same time, local governments now rely on state government transfers for 33% of their funding. …–snip–

  196. Rational Debate says:

    This post a question for Roger Sowell. First, Roger, thank you for your input on this issue! It is always nice to have a professional’s opinion on issues like this. I haven’t finished reading all the comments yet, so I may have missed some… but will wade in with this question anyhow.

    My question for you is related to the 1st Amendment – clearly it prohibits Congress from making any laws of this nature – but has that/does that translate down to the state level, e.g., are states similarly prohibited from making such laws? I suppose I’ve always assumed that to be the case either by president or however it has worked legally (and one of your comments implies this is the case), but in thinking about it more directly I wonder if that is actually the case?

  197. Rational Debate says:

    re post: Kforestcat says: November 20, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Many of these meetings were to get public feedback prior the destruction of explosively configured chemical weapons near heavily populated/highly sensitive areas. Two of these projects involved declared national emergencies in or near major cities. Agents involved included some of the deadliest know to man (sarin, mustard, and VX).

    Kforestcat, where and approx. when did these occur please?

  198. Rational Debate says:

    Of course, one big problem occurring with the migration of folks out of very liberal areas like Cali metro’s into other states like Texas, is all too often they just keep voting liberal in the new state. That winds up pushing those states in the wrong direction also.

    Several folks here have made statements as if CARB & Cali budget problems are just a function of the government…. but consider prop 26 – one would think the population would have voted to delay the implementation of CO2 regs until unemployment was down by a landslide.

    It went the other direction. I know there are plenty of folks in Ca who are more fiscally conservative – but the problem is that all too many of the heavily populated areas are filled with those who are very liberal, and they keep this madness going. San Francisco just banned toys in happy meals. All sorts of ‘green police’ regulations. I’m blown away by the CARB tire pressure law someone else just posted, I’d no idea, but its another perfect example. Shoot, the very existence of CARB in Ca is a perfect example – the majority of people in California want increased clean, green, environmental, etc. regs. They feel pride in ‘leading’ the USA in having fuel standards and other environmental standards that are significantly more restrictive than the Federal Government’s. Somehow, that majority just doesn’t seem willing to look at the actual costs, or care how much civil liberties are infringed, or even consider just how useful such regulations really are – or aren’t.

  199. I would not think that Californians think.

    There is absolutely no evidence what ever to support the notion.

  200. Defund CARB says:

    As the world turns…

    Similar to the federal side and the EPA, TSA, DOE, etc and other out of control bureaucractic agencies

    CARB needs to be defunded, along with the CEC, etc.

    If the TEA party sticks together… the FEDS will not be able to Bail out Calif again, and the state will have to go bankrupt…

    I find it ironic (or is that moronic) that the state supposedly re-elected moonbeam, since he is at the root of the problems.

    The state of CA is consistently screwed up.

  201. Defund CARB says:

    @ mike g says on November 21, 2010

    Brown and Newsom are a great pair! sarc

    Similar to… Barry and Joe!

    The US House (TEA Party) wants to take spending back to 2008 (at Least)… so a lot of promised money (bailouts) may not show up –

    Gosh, Jerry and Gavin (not to mention Barry and Joe) are going to need to get very realistic – very quickly.

  202. Kforestcat says:

    Dear Rational Debate

    Information per your request

    Primary System developed:

    – Explosive Destruction System see details at http://www.cma.army.mil/nscmp.aspx

    Primary mission locations:

    – Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 2001-2004 – destroyed over 60 weapons.
    (various fills)

    – Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, spring and summer 2001 – destroyed ten
    recovered 139 bomblets (sarin filled).

    – Former camp Sibert, Alabama, late 2002 – destroyed one world-war II 4.2 mortar
    (phosgene filled)

    – Fort Richardson, Alaska, July 2003 – destroyed various agent identification sets with
    rapid response system.

    – Spring valley, Washington D.C., summer 2003 – destroyed fifteen world-war I
    75-mm projectiles (mustard filled) .

    – Most of 2005, involved in the destruction of the Newport chemical weapons facility
    in Newport Indiana (VX facility). see here:
    http://www.cma.army.mil/newport.aspx

    Regards, kforestcat

  203. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s more California Craziness, from the December issue of Liberty magazine:

    Shangri-LA — At the state level at least, the biggest
    area of wasteful spending is public education. On August 22
    the AP reported a perfect illustration of such waste in the recent
    opening of what it calls a “Taj Mahal school” (a school
    costing more than $100 million to build) in LA-LA-Land. The
    LA Unified School District (LAUSD) has just opened the most
    expensive school in the country.
    This edifice — the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools
    campus — cost an astonishing $578 million. Million! It is a
    complex designed to house 4,200 K-12 students in style. It has
    murals (which will no doubt be covered in graffiti ere long —
    they should have just put up blank canvases), a large public
    park, a huge swimming pool, and a massive marble monument
    devoted to Robert Kennedy (the school was constructed
    on the site of the old Ambassador Hotel, where Kennedy was
    assassinated in 1968).
    This isn’t the only Taj Mahal school that LAUSD has built.
    Last year it opened the Visual and Performing Arts High
    School, which cost $232 million, and the year before it opened
    the $377 million Edward Roybal learning center (named after
    another Democratic politician).
    The Roybal school is a real pip. The district cleared the
    land for the 2,400-student building, only to discover that it
    was building the school on an earthquake fault, over a methane
    gas field, and on polluted soil. It took 20 years to finish the
    place, which includes a dance studio with cushioned maple
    floors, a ten-acre park, a massive kitchen with a restaurantquality
    pizza oven, and teacher “planning rooms” between
    the classrooms.
    A big reason for the insanely high prices for such massive
    school boondoggles is the fact that the projects had to employ
    unionized labor.
    How can the LAUSD afford to open these lavish new
    schools? I mean, it is one of the most incompetent bureaucracies
    in the world, with an aggregate 50% student dropout rate
    and a $640 million budget deficit. It laid off 3,000 teachers in
    the last two years alone.
    The answer is simple. Some time back, the idiot voters of
    the state approved a $20 billion bond issue to build schools, so
    the education pigs have a big trough to feed in.
    To be fair, Taj Mahal schools are not found only in LALA-
    Land. Dozens of such schools have been built nationwide,
    with every imaginable amenity (atriums, food courts, auditoriums
    with orchestra pits, and so on). For example, Newton
    North High School in Massachusetts cost nearly $198 million.
    But it figures that the record would be set by the LAUSD, a
    nearly bankrupt school district, in a nearly bankrupt city, in a
    nearly bankrupt state. — Gary Jason

  204. Roger Sowell says:

    @Rational Debate:

    “My question for you is related to the 1st Amendment – clearly it prohibits Congress from making any laws of this nature – but has that/does that translate down to the state level, e.g., are states similarly prohibited from making such laws? I suppose I’ve always assumed that to be the case either by president or however it has worked legally (and one of your comments implies this is the case), but in thinking about it more directly I wonder if that is actually the case?”

    This is a common misconception regarding the First Amendment and Free Speech Clause. The U.S. Congress is allowed to pass certain bills limiting freedom of speech in a number of categories, which are then signed into law by the President. State governments also may pass such laws. The example above, at 18 U.S.C. 1001, is a Federal law of this type. It is a valid restriction on Free Speech. Other valid restrictions include obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, among others.

    The speech category involved here is known as Content-specific speech, in which this type of law is included. The controlling case, from the U.S. Supreme Court, is R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) in which the Court held that laws prohibiting speech based on that speech’s content are Constitutional if two conditions are met: 1) the state (i.e. the government) has a compelling interest in regulating that speech content, and 2) the law is narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest.

    The case of R.A.V. v City of St. Paul is available on the internet, along with much scholarly commentary due to its high importance in U.S. law. One such link for the case is

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0377_ZO.html

    This case is fairly long and full of Supreme Court legalese. Warning: this case may be offensive, as it deals with burning a cross on the lawn of a black family’s home.

  205. Magnus A says:

    Creame: “Maybe Arnold had a reverse epiphany.”

    Of course, no one wants to be mocked for – or admit – dangerous stupidity. What’s your point?

  206. RichieP says:

    David A. Evans says:
    November 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    ‘RichieP says:
    November 21, 2010 at 10:22 ‘Gasoline is $1.91 per imperial gallon’

    Er no, not at all. Don’t you mean per litre? That’s what I’m paying in SE England. Per (uk) gallon that would be $5.08 or so (though, unlike some climate scientists, I’m quite prepared to have my calculations challenged).

    I calculate it closer to $8.60 US
    DaveE.’

    Er thank you for the correction, maths was never my best subject – and anyway, I’ve lost the original data now. :)

  207. “This is a common misconception regarding the First Amendment and Free Speech Clause. ”

    What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting…” are we not understanding.

    Please answer without quoting unauthorized revisions by judges, pundits, and bar-room authorities.

  208. Roger Sowell says:

    @ Larry Sheldon, re the First Amendment.

    “What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting…” are we not understanding.

    Please answer without quoting unauthorized revisions by judges, pundits, and bar-room authorities.”

    You raise a very interesting point. The language of the Constitution, and the Amendments, seems to be very clear. However, the Constitution was written, negotiated, revised, and finally approved with the understanding that it was impossible to write into the document all the nuances and situations that would someday require addressing. There is a fascinating history of the Constitution found at several places on-line.

    The First Amendment was one of the most complex, yet succinct, portions of the entire Constitution. The Founding Fathers left it to the Congress and the President to write various laws that further define the Constitution , and left it to the Courts to decide if those laws passed muster and were Constitutional. That’s how our system works, in our system of checks and balances. (by the way, the Fourth Amendment also is very short, but has millions of words written on what it means in practice. Same with just about every part of the Constitution.)

    As one example, what exactly is “abridging the Freedom of Speech?” The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches together have hammered out over many, many years that certain categories of speech are not “free,” meaning that laws could be passed to restrict such speech, and provide penalties for violating those laws.

    I gave a few examples in the earlier comment: obscenity, defamation, and fighting words. There are several others, such as death threats to a President, inciting a riot, inciting the overthrow of the government, hate speech, and a few more.

    The underlying theme is a balance between having a society in which citizens are free to express themselves without fear of retaliation from the government, versus having a dis-orderly society with a badly functioning government. Taking the Presidential death threat as an example, one can imagine how society would be if anyone could threaten the President at any time. Government resources would be expended needlessly on excessive security.

    For a fairly exhaustive resource on the First Amendment, one could spend a year or more reading and digesting the material at this link:

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/index.html

    Note that the material at that link is almost entirely from U.S. Supreme Court cases, which illustrates how very, very important it is to wisely elect a President and Senators, because those are the ones who choose Supreme Court Justices. (these are not from pundits, or bar-room sources you mentioned.)

    In the USA, we entrust those nine Justices with critically important matters such as Free Speech, even when it concerns something as mundane as climate science.

  209. Djozar says:

    Roger Sowell,

    Thanks for giving your time to help illuminate the aspects of the law. As an engineer, legal interpretations have seem to mystical.

  210. George E. Smith says:

    Well the problem with the US Constitution is that it is written in plain English, instead of the mediaeval Roman gobbledegook that Lawyers talk. Albeit, in English of a different era; but English just the same.

    So we the people can read it and know exactly what it means; because it is written so we can do that.

    Lawyers like to talk about “interpreting” the Constitution. Interpreting, means, replacing words with other words; and when you replace words with other words; you get other meaning.

    So I prefer to stay with the words that the framers wrote.

    “”””” The Founding Fathers left it to the Congress and the President to write various laws that further define the Constitution “””””

    Well not exactly. The last clause in Article I Section 8 says that (The Congress shall have the Power) to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY AND PROPER…..

    And we all know exactly what “NECESSARY” means:

    A is NECESSARY for B if, and ONLY if, Absent A, B is impossible, no matter what.

    So Congress is authotized to make only NECESSARY LAWS; not any law that comes to their little pea brain heads.

    And a law is NECESSARY only if there is only one way to do something. If a certain problem can be addressed in five different ways; each the result of a differett law; then NONE OF THOSE LAWS IS NECESSARY, because there are four other ways to do the same thing (at least). In which case the States are more than capable (or the people) of choosing which way they want to address the issue, and The Congress has no business getting involved.

    The Congress has even been known to pass laws that absolutely nobody out of the whole 535 of them in the Congress has ever read or written a word of. Such a law is hardly necessary if they pass it without reading it.

    And when it comes to the first amendment, it seems to me that no law really means NO LAW. The problem is that they pay attention to the “respecting an establishment of religion,” but they completely forget about that “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” part.

    And how come when it says : “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” the words “The people” mean “The poeple” but somehow magically you go another 30 words into the Bill of Rights; and somehow now the words “The people” mean the National Guard (which is an arm of the US military) or some other militia. Total BS.

    Howcome NOBODY ever mentions article nine of the Bill of Rights; which in essence says that “the people”; that’s US, not the national guard, retain ALL of our rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (well the Bill of Rights); and that does include THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
    Even staunch conservatives claim there is NO Constitutional Right to Privacy; like Judge Robert Bork for example. Well he’s right in a sense; in that the Constitution grants us NO rights at all. We all ready declared in the Declaration of Independence that we were born with all our rights; well we said god gave them to us.

    The Constitution literally takes rights away from US, and gives them to the Government “in Order to form a more perfect Union” ALL of the ones that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution; like the right to privacy; we the people retain under Article nine.

    Well but y’alls already knew that; right ?

    Well IANAL; but I can read ENGLISH.

    And I don’t seem to remember that part of the Constitution that tells the President that he can write laws; seems like that is for the legislative branch to do. My memory must be slipping; perhaps I should look up the Constitution on wiki or google and see what it really says. But that article IX, I do remember what that says.

  211. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” As one example, what exactly is “abridging the Freedom of Speech?” The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches together have hammered out over many, many years that certain categories of speech are not “free,” meaning that laws could be passed to restrict such speech, “””””

    And notice Roger that word there; “abridging” as applied to the freedom of speech. yes for sure it means you can’t take “War and Peace” and turn it into a classic comic; which would comprise abridgement; but certainly allows for polishing off a few sharp edges; like the ones you mentioned.

    Is it not then remarkable and worthy of EVERYONE taking note; that article II says “The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.

    So not only can’t they “abridge” the right of the people to” keep and bear arms”; but they also are enjoined from messing around on the “fringes” of that right.

    All that BS about a militia doesn’t change the meaning of the second amendment one iota; it simply changes the reason the framers gave for insisting that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (which is why only that portion is engraved above the NRA headquarters.

    They could have said:- “The sun rising in the east, being necessary for a warm day at the beach, in a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Exactly the same meaning; just a different reason for it.. You need to understand English Grammar rules to know what the second amendment means; you don’t need to know anything about what the hell a “well regulated militia” is, that doesn’t change the meaning.

  212. Gail Combs says:

    George,

    Thanks for the comments on the Constitution. It certainly makes it clear that the US Congress has wandered very very far from the directive of making ONLY NECESSARY LAWS.

    I wonder what the founding fathers would think of bill S210 regulating farms?

    From the text of the bill:
    (2) Registration

    An entity (referred to in this section as the “registrant”) shall submit a registration under paragraph (1) to the Secretary containing information necessary to notify the Secretary of the name and address of each facility at which, and all trade names under which, the registrant conducts business and, the e-mail address for the contact person of the facility or, in the case of a foreign facility, the United States agent for the facility, and when determined necessary by the Secretary through guidance, the general food category (as identified under section 170.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other food categories as determined appropriate by the Secretary, including by guidance) of any food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at such facility. The registration shall contain an assurance that the Secretary will be permitted to inspect such facility at the times and in the manner permitted by this Act. The registrant shall notify the Secretary in a timely manner of changes to such information. ”

    From the experiences of petting farm operators I have talked to this mean you MUST inform the FDA every time you leave the farm or face a possible fine. – House arrest anyone? The agent WILL inspect your kitchen cupboards, frig, bathroom medicine cabinets. Again from the actual experiences of petting farm operators I know.

    “…In S 510, the FDA is instructed to follow all international agreements. One of the issues with international ‘guidelines and standards’ is “good agricultural practices”. Well those are not necessarily good. Most GAP certifying bodies have checklists about 25 pages long for growers to follow. They all require traceability (ie. NAIS) they also require auditing, verifying and certifying the processes used to produce a consumable product for human or animal feed. Every step in GAP costs the grower of food money and a good deal of paperwork. ….” http://nonais.org/2010/11/12/s510-cloture-vote/

    “…The take-away message is clear: the US can’t require foreign producers in less developed nations to have a system that is equal to ours; we have to accept their different or lower standards as equivalent to domestic standards. Nevertheless, the legislation will hold domestic producers to higher standards than foreign producers. Once you understand this reality, the argument that the legislation is needed to improve the safety of imported food reveals itself to be a fraud.

    Despite the fact that the World Health Organization identifies globalization of the food supply as a key cause of foodborne illness worldwide, such trade will increase, even displacing US production. We are legally prohibited from doing anything meaningful about it, unless we’re willing to sustain vast fines or withdraw from the WTO….” http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Food-Safety-Reform-and-t-by-Nicole-Johnson-100426-437.html

    Sec. 105 Standards for Produce Safety also creates a similarly named new section in the FFDCA that contains sub-paragraph 419(a)(1)(A) which begins, “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary,…, shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of…fruits and vegetables…”

    one doesn’t have to have a crystal ball to know what type of rule the FDA will almost certainly write. One need only look at similar documents the FDA has already published. Take for example the 3 guides to minimize microbial food safety hazards (tomatoes, melons and leafy greens) published in July 2009. Links to each are at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/default.htm.

    The one for leafy greens is 15,294 words and takes 35 pages as a Word document. The others are similarly long and the FDA has already stated its inclination is use that technique. How does a small farming growing 40 different crops keep up with that?

    As for the rules for the HARPC plans, Silliker (one of the top consultants in food safety) did a full feasibility study in late 2009 for Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) in western MA entitled “HACCP for Salad Greens.” Except for 2 proprietary parts of the study, everything else is at http://buylocalfood.org/page.php?id=285. The requirements and cost estimates are well beyond EVERY grower I know.
    Comment by Harry Hamil at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/11/senate-to-take-key-vote-on-food-safety-bill-today/

    Forget locally grown food once this is passed.

  213. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says November 21, 2010 at 3:27 pm :

    As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?’”

    I would be careful here; I think Gail may be ‘cherry picking’ and does not consider the amount of wheat that was being grown by the farmer in this case, so, things may not be as purported …

    .

  214. Roger Sowell says:

    The wheat farmer case, Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) did involve a small dairy farmer, who grew wheat on 23 acres for his own farm’s and family’s consumption; although he did sell a small surplus from time to time. The amount of wheat he sold into the market was 239 bushels – not a great amount of wheat by any measure.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html

    The decision was justified on the grounds that even individually small market entries could disrupt interstate commerce, if this was practiced by millions of small entities.

  215. Buck says:

    Dear Mr. Cole;

    Do you have a 401K where your employer puts in a portion for you? Well what if they just put in an IOU for there portion. Then its called an “Unfunded Liability”. Is it right that your employer can do this? Well thats what California does. So politicians can use the funds for anything else they please.
    Private (401K) moneys, employers have to deposit the funds or break the Law. Kind of a nice backup (The Law) for your retirement, as opposed to letting a politician get their hands on it. Go figure……. Buck.

  216. Roger Sowell says:

    I received this email from CARB, announcing the postponement of the December 1 workshop:

    From: owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov on behalf of wfell@arb.ca.gov Sent: Fri 11/26/2010 1:00 PM
    To: post-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
    Cc:
    Subject: arbcombo — POSTPONEMENT of Dec. 1 workshop to discuss possible false statement regulation

    “The workshop scheduled for December 1st to discuss approaches to
    prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board
    or its staff has been postponed to accommodate numerous requests
    for more background information about the purpose of the draft
    proposed rule. The workshop will be rescheduled after the New
    Year.

    For more information, contact Will Brieger at:
    wbrieger@arb.ca.gov

  217. pwl says:

    “The legal right of the government to lie to the people has always bothered me as it smacks of a lack of integrity by the very people allegedly empowered to have the highest levels of integrity and honesty by the people. The members of the government, in whatever capacity or role they are filling, have a special trust to uphold and when they use deception why are they allowed to get away with it and yet a different standard is applied to the people when they lie? If a defendant in a court case lies at any point while being investigated it’s treated with such great importance that it’s as if the world came to an end… but when the cult members of the cult of government lie it’s for the benefit of the people and lifted up as somehow an honorable trick that was played to get at the truth when in fact it’s no different for it was a lie, a deception, a non-truth, falsified information, a fabrication designed to give false impressions. It’s ironic that some of the best liars are likely working within the government and get rewarded for it.

    It seems that the government cult members just can’t help themselves:

    “Evidently CARB [California Air Resources Board] is contemplating a regulation that would enable penalties for what would be judged “dishonest statements or submittals” provided to it or “staff.” I think one can safely assume that it is aimed at curtailing challenges to CARB’s agenda that are based on alternative scientific information and interpretations.” – Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties

    I found this following article about the limits of when and how the police are “allowed to lie” to suspects and it’s quite shocking… they can almost get away with any thing… I wonder how this applies to those within the framework of the cult of government working as scientists (including university staff or students receiving government grants) are allowed to lie? How far can their fabrications go? What are the limits of lying in science? How many lies make it into peer reviewed papers? How many are caught or punished?



    Given that Wolfram provides a mathematical and computer science proof that even simple systems generate complex behavior that renders predictability of systems as complex as weather and climate systems impossible, how can any prediction of climate be taken to be anything except a “dishonest statement”?


    ….
    Read the full article here: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/11/29/if-you-want-honest-members-of-the-government-take-away-their-legal-right-to-lie-to-you

Comments are closed.