EPA’s totalitarian assault on America

After using phony transparency and dialogue to target auto racing, then all fossil fuel use

Duggan Flanakin

Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan is clearly on a mission. He has “bold aspirations, and a long to-do list,” says The Washington Post. But to succeed, the Postacknowledges, he must “help the EPA get its groove back.” As Reagan put it, “We’ve got a lot of work to do, starting with rebuilding staff morale and getting all our staff back to feeling as if they matter, theirvoices matter.”

Regan says his job is “to restore the scientific integrity and the utilization of data, of facts, as we move forward, and make some very important decisions.” His second goal is to increase “cooperation” between the EPA and its “subordinate” state environmental agencies. EPA will dictate; states will fall in line.

A big step toward that goal was extending a Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA, the Environmental Council of the States, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. According to Regan, “EPA is committed to building on the values of transparency, respect, and an open dialogue that are the cornerstone of a successful partnership with the states.” As EPA defines the terms.

An Obama-appointed federal judge just restored the EPA’s use of “secret science” in formulating regulations that businesses and industries must follow just because the EPA says so – with “scientific evidence” that cannot be cross-examined. U.S. District Judge Brian Morris (in Great Falls, Montana) took just hours before vacating the Trump EPA rule that would have ended this Star Chamber style rule.

For decades, the EPA relied on unreviewable studies to impose draconian restrictions on businesses and industries, and thus on the U.S. economy. Trump wanted to bring true transparency to the process. Opponents claimed the Trump secret science” rule would block the use of critical public health studies kept secret supposedly to protect the identities of trial participants – which of course was not the case.

As Trump EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained, the “secret science” rule in no way blocked previous “secret” studies; rather, it created tiers in which preference is given to studies with public data. Peer reviewers looking at a study’s raw data did not need to know any of the subject’s names, so no patient confidentiality was at risk. Moreover, in most cases, a review of basic methods, statistics and results is sufficient to determine if they actually support the study’s conclusion. Wheeler also noted:

“Too often Congress shirks its responsibility and defers important decisions to regulatory agencies. These regulators then invoke science to justify their actions, often without letting the public study the underlying data. Part of transparency is making sure the public knows what the agency bases its decisions on.”

Now the Biden-Harris EPA has revived its old policy based on a failed 2015 (Obama-Biden) rulemaking that twists the Clean Air Act language in an effort to destroy auto racing as a sport in the USA.

The EPA claims modifying a vehicle previously certified for street driving for use as a competition-only racecar is unlawful even for vehicles that are trailered and never driven on public roads again. This policy seeks to end a 50-year-old American tradition. It has no precedent; even California exempts racing vehicles from regulation. 

Not only does the EPA claim it is illegal to convert a vehicle for racing by modifying its emission system; it claims manufacturing, selling or installing race parts for such vehicles is likewise unlawful. It’s even said enforcement actions against high performance parts – including superchargers, tuners and exhaust systems – will now be a top priority.

This policy constitutes a direct assault on the nation’s 1,300 racetracks, tens of thousands of participants and vehicle owners, and millions of racing fans nationwide. It is also a death blow to retail sales of racing products, a $2 billion a year industry. The move appears to be part of the Obama-Biden-Harris EPA strategy to rid the planet (or at least the USA) of internal combustion engines by taking away the romance of the racecar.

To thwart this likely unconstitutional EPA power grab, the Specialty Equipment Market Association has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in a lawsuit by Gear Box Z, Inc. challenging the racecar conversion ban. The industry group also supports the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act (RPM Act), which reaffirms the legality of converting street vehicles into race-only vehicles and confirms the legitimacy of producing, marketing and installing racing equipment.

They should prevail. But with today’s courts, do even the most specific, commonsense laws still matter?

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial says the Biden-Harris EPA has a secret plan to force massive CO2 emissions reductions under the Clean Air Act, using ozone as its vehicle of choice. “Plan B” is the fallback strategy to be implemented once it is clear that even the Democrat-controlled Congress will not enact economy-killing anti-fossil fuel legislation. The ultimate goal is total fossil fuel eradication.

Under Plan B, EPA will reset the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to zero – way below natural levels that Mother Nature herself emits! The “science” is based on a questionable 2017 study from Harvard’s T. C. Chan School of Public Health, which claims there is no safe level of ozone in the atmosphere. How do you prosecute Mother Nature?

Plan B responds to the failure of the Obama-Biden Clean Power Plan, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. It reflects former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s blunt admission that it is technically infeasible and even legally questionable to regulate CO2 as a “criteria pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.

The simple reasons are fundamental. CO2 is what humans and animals exhale. It is what plants inhale to support photosynthesis and produce the oxygen that most life on Planet Earth requires to exist. It does not cause asthma or other diseases. CO2 emissions generated in a locality cannot be measured reliably and certainly cannot be reduced within the 10-year timetable for criteria pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Using ozone and the NAAQS to regulate CO2 is reportedly the brainchild of Joe Goffman, whom the Biden-Harris Administration has installed as principal deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. Goffman, a chief architect of the Obama era Clean Power Plan, is known as EPA’s “law whisperer.” His specialty is “teaching old laws to do new tricks.”

Goffman’s plan was jump-started on January 19, 2021, when 16 Democratic state attorneys-general filed a legal challenge to the EPA’s recently reauthorized ozone NAAQS. Their one-paragraph sue-and-settle lawsuit claims the standards are “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious and therefore must be vacated.”

The Trump EPA in December 2020 had retained the ozone NAAQS at levels set in 2015 by the Obama-Biden Administration. That action marked only the second time since the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted that EPA completed its ozone NAAQS review within the mandatory 5-year timeframe.

As the Wall Street Journal explains, Democratic AGs, green groups and top Biden environmental regulators intend to impose the Green New Deal on states through backdoor regulations,because they know they can’t get it through the front door of Congress, even this sycophantic Congress.

Under this nefarious scheme – which could be imposed this year without any “open dialogue” in Congress – every state would be forever out of compliance, JunkScience.com director Steve Milloy emphasizes. It is simply impossible to eliminate natural background levels of ozone. But this action would give EPA effective and arbitrary control over the entire economy, especially fossil fuel use.

Giving unelected bureaucrats and a like-minded political cabal “effective and arbitrary control” over the entire U.S. economy creates a dictatorship of faceless and nameless totalitarians whose diktats the political class can claim they are powerless to upend. This is where America is headed, unless we stop these power-crazed autocrats.

Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org). His career includes overseeing publication of scientific research at the U.S. Bureau of Mines and in-depth reporting on regulatory agencies, environmental education, and science policy.

5 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
April 3, 2021 6:15 am

The measure, called the American Jobs Plan, is the first step in a two-part agenda to overhaul American capitalism, fight climate change and try to improve the productivity of the economy. Joe Biden March 3rd 2021 New York Times

Reply to  Steve Case
April 4, 2021 12:58 am

Yeah, part two is the Family Plan. “helping women work and earn more”.
So, instead of allowing mothers to raise their children, the libtards decided they need to work more?
Thanks, Steve, you really put this into perfect perspective for us.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steve Case
April 4, 2021 11:39 am

“…agenda to overhaul overthrow American capitalism…”

There, fixed it for ya.

April 3, 2021 6:42 am

The only “secret” in this Bigfoot “secret science” is the privacy of the individual data providers. The Trump administration tried to use this BS strawman as an excuse to impugn any scientific studies that might have ended up costing their handlers money.

There is NO proof that EPA health data has been compromised by protecting the privacy rights of those providing it. But even for the tiny fraction of the data that MIGHT for any reason be compromised, there are independent assessment techniques that will protect that privacy.


Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 8:33 am

That web page says:

“”The memo further stipulates, “Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation, contributes to systemic inequities and injustices, and violates the trust that the public places in government to best serve its collective interests.””

God forbid that anyone would dare challenge Federal scientists. It is VERBOTEN. You shall be excommunicated!

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 9:35 am

There is NO proof that EPA health data has been compromised by protecting the privacy rights of those providing it.

Riiiight … ever heard of Kafka?

Reply to  commieBob
April 3, 2021 11:28 am

Riiiight … ever heard of Kafka?”

An actual Kafkaesque attempt to deflect from the fact that you don’t have any of the proof that would be required to short circuit the scientific process. As Trump did.

Thank the Imaginary Guy In The Sky that we are back on track to help those victimized by Lamb Chops Trump with the polluters hands up his dress. My bro’ the veteran EPA On Scene Coordinator is especially happy with the prospect of doing some of the clean ups he was prevented from doing for the last 4 years.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 11:45 am

How do you even get the secret data to prove that? That’s why it’s Kafkaesque.

Reply to  commieBob
April 3, 2021 12:12 pm

“Secret science” is the posters term. The idea was to inhibit scientific inquiry by not allowing in any data without also outing the patient’s identity, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of fraudulently derived data.. I.e. yet another eerily familiar solution in search of a problem. But instead of suppressing inconvenient votes, the idea was to reduce citizen protections from poisonous pollution.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 3:02 pm

Ignore fraud for the time being.

There is a replication crisis. link Most published research findings are wrong.

Scientific findings that are used as a reason to regulate our lives have to be treated with extreme skepticism. Anything that keeps us from closely examining those studies is evil.

It is crucial to protect society from poisonous regulation.

Reply to  commieBob
April 3, 2021 5:26 pm

There is a replication crisis.”

I agree. The problem is mostly in the social sciences, but we need to improve replication, period.

“Scientific findings that are used as a reason to regulate our lives have to be treated with extreme skepticism.”

I agree.

“Anything that keeps us from closely examining those studies is evil.”

If that “anything” is transparently a bid by polluters to interfere with valid data evaluation, then I disagree. The bid to prevent use of health data based on the doctor patient relationship is obviously such situation, and I’m glad that the ship has been righted.

“It is crucial to protect society from poisonous regulation.”

I agree. Thankfully, that is not what is under discussion here.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 6:49 pm

The problem is mostly in the social sciences,

I won’t even give you that. Check out the link I provided.

The one place replication is routinely attempted is in biomedical research. Pharmaceutical companies scan the literature looking for research findings that can be turned into drugs. The first thing they do when they find something interesting is to try to replicate the results. As many as nine in ten published research findings can not be reproduced. In a dismaying number of cases, the original researchers can’t even reproduce their own experimental results.

There is no good reason to think other branches of sciences are immune to the same problems that beset biomedical research. It’s just that for most science research, replication is never attempted.

Given that the replication crisis is common knowledge in the scientific community, the EPA is demonstrably derelict. Pharmaceutical companies have set the bar at replication. If the EPA wants to use published research findings as the basis for regulations, they have a duty to replicate those findings at very least.

Most of the research the EPA relies on should be thrown out until it is substantiated. And no, the expert opinion of a bureaucrat doesn’t count as substantiation.

Reply to  commieBob
April 3, 2021 7:57 pm

Pharmaceutical companies have set the bar at replication. If the EPA wants to use published research findings as the basis for regulations, they have a duty to replicate those findings at very least.”

Pharmaceutical companies protect patient privacy as well as the EPA did, pre and post Trump. ALL reputable US health researchers do. The wish by the polluters to cripple EPA research efforts, by starving them of health data that patients would not provide if their privacy was compromised, was only one of Trumps Ben Dovers to those polluters.

“Most of the research the EPA relies on should be thrown out until it is substantiated. And no, the expert opinion of a bureaucrat doesn’t count as substantiation.”

AGAIN, not only a solution in search of a problem, but a blatant lie about motive. You have NO examples of fudged data, even given the ease of EPA whistleblower execution – at least pre and post Trump. Apparently any research finding you don’t like is by definition, from a “bureaucrat”, if it doesn’t fit your prejudgments.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 8:48 pm

I don’t lie. You have either deliberately, or for some other reason, misread what I wrote. Good night.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 4, 2021 3:00 am

Nailing it bob, bravo sir.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Loydo
April 4, 2021 11:42 am

The blind leading the blind. Sad.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 3, 2021 10:56 am

“that might have ended up costing their handlers money.”

The Trump administration had handlers?

Or is this just a great, big conspiracy theory?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 3, 2021 11:20 am

The Trump administration had handlers?”

Not just a record amount of them. Also, the unique rudderlessness that comes from listening to the last person who caught your ear.


Reply to  bigoilbob
April 4, 2021 3:32 am

So, not just an elitist, an America hating elitist. Got it, fact free boob.

Reply to  bigoilbob
April 4, 2021 7:35 am

Therefore you are in favor of eliminating auto racing.

Tom Halla
April 3, 2021 6:50 am

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) set the ozone standards so low that the LA basin is out of compliance with only the Volatile Organic Compounds emissions from vegetation alone. If you can smell a plant, it is emitting VOCs.

Dr. Bob
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 3, 2021 10:07 pm

As far back as 1970, 50% of LA Basin hydrocarbon emissions were from plants. These are terpenes, unsaturated reactive compounds that cause NOx and Oxone formation. There is essentially nothing that can be done about them other than cement over all of LA, but there is still the mountains with all the pines and essentially any other plant that emits hydrocarbons. Most are unsaturated compounds that react readily with oxygen in sunlight causing pollutants. Cars and trucks with cats and traps are now cleaner than the ambient air. So they are not the source of “pollution”. Nature is.

April 3, 2021 6:50 am

Inertially speaking, The Government’s job is to grow Government.

I am not making any analogies or endorsing this video, but if you know what to look for you see it. Listen to 5 minutes of this (@19:05). It is a survivor account of the Austrian Anschluss:


When I saw that video initially, many years ago, I was fascinated by the train-wreck cause and effect of all of the government policies, but I thought she was a little paranoid (being a former Left of center person). But now I am not so sure??? (sigh)

Reply to  Anon
April 4, 2021 4:12 am

Obama was obviously a communist, but most democrats are fascists, with all of the corruption that was observed in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Isn’t it funny that the party that likes to essentially claim capitalism = fascism is actually the fascist party.

Walter Horsting
April 3, 2021 6:54 am

Meanwhile, China burns 50% of all coal, and is planning, financing, and or building 1,500 new coal plants, while the idiot West buys its crappy, intermittent low density solar and wind. Insuring that the West will have much more expensive energy compared to China.

Reply to  Walter Horsting
April 3, 2021 7:17 am

…while the climate alarmists get rich on carbon credits.

Last edited 1 year ago by S.K.
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Walter Horsting
April 3, 2021 8:16 am

China imports coal and exports solar panels….

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 3, 2021 8:40 am

And they export their Confucius Institutes.


Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 3, 2021 10:19 am

To confuse us.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 3, 2021 11:41 am

Some U.S. universities have kicked the Confucius Institutes off campus.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Walter Horsting
April 3, 2021 8:37 am
April 3, 2021 6:56 am

I am so eager to defend corporations from tax hikes and regulations so they can donate to Black Lives Matter.

April 3, 2021 7:12 am

This is the results of an experiment to verify co2 sensitivity which has been absent from debate.


If replicated, we then know Co2 is not a GHG.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  S.K.
April 3, 2021 8:43 am

and of course this research will NEVER be mentioned in the MSM

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  S.K.
April 3, 2021 3:13 pm

My Master’s Degree (Mechanical Engineering) research involved measuring CO2 and water vapor concentrations in a stream of fuel/air combustion products. The CO2 instrument I used was a Beckmann Instruments non-dispersive infrared analyzer. It worked by passing two infrared light beams down the length of two parallel tubes, one containing nitrogen (the reference tube), the other the continuous stream of sample gas. The two beams then each entered half of the measurement receiver, two sealed compartments with infrared transparent windows, each filled with CO2 at 1 atm. The compartments were thermally joined by a massive metal block. In any event, when sample gas containing CO2 flowed through the sample tube, it would absorb some of the infrared. This caused the pressure in the corresponding half of the receiver to drop because it cooled relative to the other side, causing a pressure difference between it and the reference side. The output signal was based on that pressure difference.

IIRC, it was good for measuring from 0 to 30% CO2 by volume. I did this in 1980, so it has been a while. Anyway, the instrument wouldn’t have worked at all if CO2 didn’t absorb infrared, both in the sample tube and the receiver, and if that absorption didn’t result in heating the receiver CO2. It worked quite well.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael S. Kelly
Chris Bock
April 3, 2021 7:16 am

The PTB and that includes politicians on both the left and the right, believes they can control, manipulate and transform the natural world to their liking. Its all a fairy tale. But this is part and parcel of their underlying discomfort with the natural world and man in particular. They long for a technocratic world where mankind is not living with nature but master of it

April 3, 2021 7:51 am

If the EPA wants to be so transparent, how about demanding a real scientific debate on the so called ‘science’ behind climate alarmism. Science doesn’t operate by conforming to a political agenda, but by repeatably testing hypotheses. When the IPCC’s claims are rigorously tested, it becomes clear that the IPCC is so wrong, it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate scientific pursuit.

Committing trillions of dollars to solve a problem that can’t even exist will destroy our economy. It this isn’t a crime, it should be, and every single politician pushing this false narrative should be impeached, regardless of party. What they’re doing is no different than committing trillions of dollars in an attempt to make our round Earth flat.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 3, 2021 8:12 am

Joey “Xi” Biden is gonna bring us all together….all the deplorable Neanderthals will be sent to a re-education facility…everything and everybody will be politicized to the max. One nation, under socialism, for socialism…forever….and ever. Joey wants mo gubment…mo taxes…mo debt…mo demrat perty.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 3, 2021 8:31 am

It is time to refund the police and defund the EPA.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 4, 2021 1:27 am

It doesn’t need to, because the weight of scientific evidence is such that that would be redundant.

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:48 am


What scientific evidence supports the requirement that the next W/m^2 of forcing is 3-4 times more powerful at sustaining surface warmth than the average W/m^2? If you deny that this is the case, then I suggest some remedial physics training is in order so you may learn that Conservation of Energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law are immutable properties of the physical world.

There’s absolutely NO support from the laws of physics for the ECS claimed by the IPCC and this faulty metric is the backbone of climate alarmism. The only supporting evidence you have is hearsay repeating the relentless lies from those whose minds have been corrupted by politics to support climate alarmism.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:40 am

Since they refuse to present any scientific evidence you are full of crap, just as they are.

April 3, 2021 8:43 am

Well, I checked and the EPA is not banning all racecar conversions – far from it.

EPA Banning Road to Racecar Conversions? (snopes.com)

This site could do with a little more fact checking, may I suggest?

Peta of Newark
Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 9:31 am

Compare the dates:

From the link here:
SEMA Vs. the EPA’s Attempt to Outlaw Race CarsBy Jason R. Sakurai on March 16, 2021

From Snopes:
EPA Seeks to Ban Racecar Conversions?A February 2016 press release led many racing enthusiasts to believe the EPA had banned road car-to-racecar conversions.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 9:34 am

Snopes! LOL!

That explains a lot.

Reply to  Climate believer
April 4, 2021 1:25 am

Yes: it shows it is bunkum. Snopes are reliable.

I note they regularly point out fake news on skeptic websites.

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:03 am

No they were wrong, your ability to miss the obvious remains unbroken.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:42 am

Reliably lying, just like you.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 10:20 am

You people need to learn how to check your fact checkers.

Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 11:45 am

That from you ???????
This site could do with a little more fact checking,
For you, facts are tabu and you the last to ask for fact checking 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 4, 2021 1:26 am

I check everything before I post: the excitable posters of political opinions here don’t.

Nobody is banning car racing: that’s politically inspired fake news.

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:08 am

Who said it was banning race cars?

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:44 am

You don’t check jack shyte, liar.

Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 11:54 am

Did you read all of Snopes’ article, Griff?

Because if you did, you didn’t grasp that the core FACT of this issue is that despite what EPA spinsters say they are intending or not intending to do, what they have empowered themselves to do is as per the legislation, viz –

“Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become nonroad vehicles or engines.” 80 Fed. Reg. 40138, 40565 (July 13, 2015).

Reply to  Mr.
April 4, 2021 1:26 am

Oh, yes: now I see: it is ALL A SINISTER PLOT. How could I have missed that?

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:06 am

A sinister plot that only YOU would think of.

John Schulting
Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:32 pm

It looks to me like you got owned here Griff, or do you have a response to the post by Mr?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 1:10 pm

grief wants fact checking

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  griff
April 3, 2021 7:14 pm

Griff, while you are hard at checking facts, find the study that measures warming caused by CO2. I know where the warming caused by NASA/NOAA is.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 4, 2021 1:27 am

Human CO2 causes warming. Get over it!

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:01 am

Ha ha,

You were asked a question about finding a study, you avoid it, how come?

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:41 am

Just keep repeating that lie, it is all you ever have.

Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 3:23 am


An organisation originally run by a husband and wife, until she caught him spending $90,000 on Hookers.

They divorced and he married an exotic dancer.

They now run Snopes alone, with no staff………..

Reply to  Hotscot
April 4, 2021 6:14 am

Griff just googles and the first link that comes up with the right headline he links. He is to stupid to actually read the articles or check anything. He like Greta is the ideal climate activist because they fall into the mentally challenged category.

Reply to  Hotscot
April 4, 2021 11:19 am

Many years ago, when they were still mainly an internet hoax fact-checker (instead of a political propaganda site), they had a section of fake “fact-checks” with a note that people shouldn’t even take THEM as an authority, but should check for themselves.

Pretty sure those are all gone now, along with the warning.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 3, 2021 10:16 am

It is clear that a juggernaut like the EPA can not reformed in one term of a presidency. The logic of this situation prescribes that the next MAGA president should take the bull by the horns on day one and abolish the outfit to be replaced, if needed, by an organisation with a charter that protects it from political interference.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
April 3, 2021 10:49 am

The Democrats have shown that everything can be reformed in ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

House and Senate rules allow one bill where only 50 + 1 vote in the Senate, a simple majority in the house and a president’s agreement can pass massive changes. The bill must be for budgetary purposes, i this case reducing spending.

Just use the bill to eliminate spending by deleting the legislation that created the EPA, and every other costly red tape producing bureaucracy created by such federal law. Clean house, lay off ALL the employees, sell all buildings, terminate all leases, stop spending the money. Add a looser pays for the legal system and a mandate that judges must rule within 30 days, all judges including the SCOTUS. Block grant to states any “entitlement” program kept in place, equal dollars per citizen, not per “person receiving the aid” since leftist states recruit the “needy”. Have ALL records deleted including employees information to make it more difficult to rebuild the mess. Trillions saved. it would take until the next presidential election to attempt to reverse the actions. By then MOST Americans would begin to understand that all the disappearance of all that crap had NO negative effect on their lives.

April 3, 2021 10:18 am

the utilization of data

That says it all, really. It’s how you utilise it….

Last edited 1 year ago by fretslider
Tom Abbott
April 3, 2021 10:55 am

From the article: “They should prevail. But with today’s courts, do even the most specific, commonsense laws still matter?”

Good question. I don’t know the answer.

Tom Abbott
April 3, 2021 11:09 am

We could prevent the EPA from using climate science against the rest of us.

What we have to do is show that the EPA’s regulation of CO2 is not necessary.

What skeptics could do to make this happen is for some skeptic organization, or a skeptic billionaire, or crowdfunding organization to offer a $1 million prize to anyone who can either debunk or confirm Dr. William Happer’s research, which theorizes that CO2 has an upper limit to the amount of warmth it can add to the Earth’s atmosphere, and Dr. Happer says we are very near that upper limit right now. According to Dr. Happer, adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of current levels, will not raise the temperatures higher.

If Dr. Happer’s research is confirmed, then we won’t need the EPA to regulate CO2 because Dr. Happer would have proven that is no longer necessary.

This contest should be held before the world spends countless Trillions of dollars trying to reign in CO2.

Spend a million, save Trillions!

Kit P
April 3, 2021 11:50 am

According to the US EPA’s own web site the US has not had an application problem for 40 years.


The best thing you do for people at risk because the had a 2 pack a day habit for 60 years is provide cheap electricity to heat and cool where they sit in a recliner next to an oxygen bottle.

Izaak Walton
April 3, 2021 12:33 pm

I am impressed that the “Obama-Biden-Harris” team had enough influence to make the
EPA file a lawsuit against Gear Box Z in January 2020. And here I was naively thinking that
Trump was president then.

April 3, 2021 1:00 pm

The climate changers have big plans everywhere-
The dirty secret of so-called ‘fossil-fuel free’ buildings (msn.com)

There’s no dirty secret with the productivity and benefits of fossil fuels. Just that it’s afforded a whole class of navel gazing useless idiots who think their lifestyle on the taxpayer drip no longer depends on such productivity.

Ron Long
April 3, 2021 1:22 pm

It appears to me that President Carter weaponized the EPA. As a mining exploration geologist who sought permits from a smorgasboard of federal agencies, EPA included, I saw laws pushed aside for various agendas relating to environmentalism. Once I went to the Elko county, Nevada, Commissioners and asked for a permit that the feds wouldn’t give me and they said not only will we give you the permit, but we will send deputies to keep others from harassing you. That’s where we are headed again.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
April 5, 2021 7:00 am

State’s Rights! 🙂

April 3, 2021 3:05 pm

Totalitarian subjugation is their mission. Anti-human Malthusian zealots are in charge.

Kit P
April 3, 2021 3:59 pm

This topic was discussed in an RV site that I read.

Here it is presented as click bait to get emotional responses.

My motorhome has a 5.9L Cummins ISB diesel engine rated at 275 hp. The previous owner had a ‘Banks Power Pack’ installed to get 25 more hp. Last year I replaced my cracked exhaust manifold with a more robust ‘racing’ exhaust manifold.

I am not too worried about getting on the wrong side of the EPA.

However, if you sell a product to intentionally get around regulations and you market it that way; I would expect you want to have good lawyers.

April 3, 2021 8:14 pm

Whenever a Democrat, progressive, or leftist says “transparency” they mean only showing their curated, censored, mangled and tortured “data”. When a Republican, liberal (classical liberal), or conservative says “transparency” they mean show ALL the data, no matter how messy.

lee riffee
April 3, 2021 9:17 pm

Sounds like just another slap at conservatives by this current administration, since car racing tends to be a sport enjoyed by more conservatives than liberals. That said, I suppose car racing could continue on – imagine racing EVs….Let’s see, without the roar of the engines, far fewer people will attend (guess they would have to pipe in the roar of the engines, kind of like they did with the sounds of cheering fans in sports stadiums emptied by the Coronavirus). And everytime there is a wreck the entire grandstands will have to be evacuated due to toxic battery fires. Plus, I can’t even imagine a demolition derby with EVs – way, way too dangerous as far as fire risk. A gasoline fire can be put out fairly easily, a chemical fire, not so much.
And then, modding EVs to race would likely be rather lame – not much to do other than put in a bigger motor (well, OK, maybe some body modification to the vehicle…)! The drivers would have to have more protective gear just in case they got trapped in the car with a burning battery.

Reply to  lee riffee
April 4, 2021 1:23 am

Except nobody is actually proposing anything which will stop car racing.

That’s another piece of fake news

John Schulting
Reply to  griff
April 4, 2021 8:36 pm

Griff you got owned on this same point in a discussion above. The quoted regulations clearly prohibit modifications, even if solely used off road.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:43 am

Yes, EPA has made attempts to stop car racing and this is yet another.

Vincent Causey
April 4, 2021 12:09 am

As sure as night follows day, when you have unelected bureaucratic organisations with regulatory powers, you slide inevitably into a non democratic society. Technocracy grew and grew in the EU until it threatens to bring the entire project down. America is not far behind.

April 4, 2021 3:34 am

So EPA will continue to lie and obfuscate as they f**k America into third world status. Same old same.

April 4, 2021 7:33 am

Maybe, when gasoline is $6 per gallon and electric rates have tripled, maybe, just maybe, Americans will wake up.

Don Jindra
April 4, 2021 9:23 am

As much as you or i might not like the EPA’s policies, that’s a striking misuse of the word ‘totalitarian’. Folks need to keep things in perspective.

%d bloggers like this: