35 Burst results for "EPA"
Government awarding $1 billion to schools for electric buses
"Ramping up its push to get more clean school buses on the roads The government's awarding roughly a $1 billion in grants to nearly 400 school districts nationwide to buy 2500 new mostly electric school buses only about 1% of the nation's 480,000 school buses were electric as of last year Vice president Harris will announce the grants today in Seattle with EPA chief Michael Regan who says a cleaner fleet of buses will give kids a healthier future while speeding the national transition to zero emission vehicles
The Founding Fathers Were Very Clear About Separation of Powers
"Go back to the founding fathers, they were very clear about separation of powers and consent to the governed and checks and balances. Three branches equal any fourth grader that's taught civics of which they're increasingly not taught civics could tell you exactly the moral premise behind separation of powers. Starting in the 1920s, simultaneous, by the way, with kind of the regime of scientists and scientism is there was this fourth branch of government, where Woodrow Wilson, one of the worst presidents in American history, basically made an argument that the kind of founding fathers and what they said and what they did, that's old, that's outdated. We got to turn our back on that a new era is here. We have technology and we can govern men through different ideas and practices. Now, the implications of that is that an entire new regime, if you will, of governmental power and control was ushered in, that does not really fit into those checks and balances. For example, the power is no longer in Congress or in the executive branch, the power is in the deepest kind of chasms of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the EPA, and you have this unregulated regulatory agencies that are unchecked largely unknown with unlimited power. And it's very hard to then check and balance it, and then you all of a sudden have very bad things happen. And you ask yourself, who actually voted for this? So for example, Congress should say, if you're funding gain of function research at Boston University, not only should he lose your funding, like you should be arrested. This is insane.
EPA civil rights case targets Mississippi over Jackson water
"The Environmental Protection Agency has launched a civil rights investigation into the water crisis in Jackson Mississippi on Norman hall The EPA says its investigating whether Mississippi state agencies discriminated against the city of Jackson the states majority black capital city by refusing to fund improvements for its failing water system word of the probe came days after two congressional committees said they were starting a joint investigation into a crisis that left most homes and businesses in Jackson without running water for several days in late August and early September NAACP president Derrick Johnson who lives in Jackson called the EPA probe a step in the right direction but governor Tate Reeves a Republican blames the water problems on Jackson's democratic local leaders I Norman hall
Only 8 of the Past 30 Years Have Seen Democrats Rule in the House
"I said, there's only been 8 years of Democrat rule in the house in 30 years. I said, I want you to think about that for a second. Yeah. But then I stopped for a second. And I said, but let's talk about some of the biggest pieces of legislation that affect your life today when were they passed. In those 8 years. ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, you know, the climate stuff. Then you get the infrastructure Bill last year. You get the bill back mansion bill, or infrastructure, you get the extra extra that calls the inflation. Of the Bill last year with COVID. And you go back to what was happening at EPA and everything. I said, so here's the deal, so it's the willingness to do the policy that is not there. But I've just been amazed that and I think really it goes back to what you said. Especially the last 18, 20 months. They don't care. I think they realize, hey, look, we're going to lose probably in November again. Just like Pelosi knew she was going to lose in tan. So they're just saying, we're going to do whatever we want to do.
How President Obama Gave Us President Biden
"Obama since I already spoke about him earlier. Let me go ahead and work this in. Obama and this is the man knows how to campaign. Like him or not, I can't stand him. I think he was the worst president in American history. The reason why I say that and I realize there are bad presidents out there, Andrew Johnson, in my opinion, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon really screwed us as a Republican with the EPA and going off the gold standard and all these all these kinds of things Woodrow Wilson right, you'll hear you'll hear about him and Biden obviously is horrible and many people contend that Biden is the worst president ever. Obviously other people talk about Jimmy Carter as well. The reason why I think Barack Obama is is because he said a lot of the stuff that we're experiencing today and place. He set the foundation. Were it not for Barack Obama? We wouldn't even have a Joe Biden. He rescued Joe Biden. Joe Biden was nothing more than a corrupt crook, right? That's all he was. That's all he would have ever been. That would have been his legacy. Just a corrupt no good crook that was in Washington, D.C. for his entire life, never amounted to anything. Everyone there understood that the guy was complete and utter moron and a jerk, but Obama is the one that gave him the platform that he has essentially asked today. In my opinion, helped to resurrect him. But Obama said a lot of this stuff in place. This cultural arc system that you see, there were orders issued executive order so on it issued throughout his administration, the way that he would come out and talk about if I had a son, you know, he looked just like Trayvon. I'm like, he looked just like Trayvon. But what are you talking about? You have black half white. You're someone look like Trayvon. For God's sakes. I mean, just a little stuff like that. There's someone to look like Blake Griffin. I used to say, I don't even know where Blake Griffin is. You know, where Blake Griffin is. Now I don't even know where that. He plays for the Celtics. All right, so just nonsense like that.
Utah Candidates Spar Over Trump in a Close and Unusual Senate Race
"I have been told that you had the pleasure of watching what I think was one of the most disgraceful performances I've heard of in this cycle, which is truly saying something. Evan mcmullin's disgusting attack on Mike Lee last night. That got him booed in Utah. I got the Utah folks angry. What do you think of that? Well, it was extraordinary. First of all, with a lot of the issues, they really didn't disagree very much. I mean, didn't really disagree very much with Lee on does the EPA overreach does the federal government spend too much money, is it a bad idea for the president to unilaterally forgive college loans? It's not like there was any real disagreement between them. It was just McMullen attacking Lee for allegedly supporting an insurrection. And he basically said McMullen said, this was the single most disgraceful trader is act by U.S. senator in history. It was just unbelievable the kind of stuff. Well, that's literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard somebody say in American politics. I mean,
Most Conservatives Would Say Gov't Is the Biggest Threat to Freedom...
"You know, most people in the conservative movement would say that government is the greatest threat to our freedoms. It's hard to disagree with that. The FBI is going after pro life leaders all across the country. The Department of Justice is going after political dissidents, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro and many others. They rated Mar-a-Lago and took documents way outside of the purview of what they were allowed to get. Now, I would say that people in the traditional right, people in the old right, they get government tyranny pretty well. They're able to describe it. They talk about how the progressives violated separation of powers and consent to the governed on how Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey and many others threw away the kind of promise of the American constitution and they tried to write a new constitution because they basically believe thanks to technology, a new era is here. I think all of that is great and it's important to remember it and to repeat it and to clarify that. But one of the things that frustrates, let's just say those of us on the new right, the maga right, the America first movement. Is when people fail to recognize and realize that it's not just government that is coming after our freedoms. We must recognize that the threat landscape is not just in the FBI the CIA the Department of Justice, the IRS, or the EPA, and the fourth branch of government. No, there has been an effort, a movement to create an extra constitutional method to take your stuff, to silence you and violate your rights. This movement has been at work for over a decade. Now, we talk about the woke mind virus. We talk about critical race theory, post post structuralism. We talk about all these different factors coming together and how they are able to be implemented into all major institutions in American society.
Why Democrats Hate the Filibuster
"Liberty is zero sum The more stuff the government does means the less stuff you can do that is why the Democrats hate the filibuster It creates a higher threshold 60 votes in the United States Senate for them to do stuff It's a simple majority in the House Simple majority 50.1% That's all you need And you're good in the house Not in the Senate Through process it's roughly a 60 vote Well Dan they just passed the IRA inflation reduction act Hilariously titled by the way which is 51 Yeah because they use this reconciliation scam And you're going to see that use more and more The filibuster honestly folks is probably largely dead anyway But that makes my point that if they're going to do it the Democrats are going to dump the filibuster to put you on a gun list through universal background checks To take away more of your money by dumping the Trump tax cuts to enact more and more ridiculous regulations of red tape so that again more decisions are taken away from you and given the EPA bureaucrats and other stuff then we might as well dump it in advance
Alfredo Ortiz: Legal Challenges to Biden's Student Loan Bailout
"Alfredo, I'm reading about this is pretty exciting. You guys are exploring legal challenges. Maybe some legal options to block this unconstitutional bailout from occurring. Good morning, Mike, and as always, thank you very much for having me. And yes, we are, Mike, because look, this kind of overreach is literally now the modus operandi, the standard operating procedure for this Biden administration. They can't get things necessarily through and unfortunately the things that they are getting through are going to kill America like this ridiculous $780 billion bill that was just passed, but this is clearly clearly unconstitutional. It's clear executive overreach. And it's very similar to what happened on the moratorium. And frankly, the key thing here is going to be the EPA versus West Virginia or West Virginia versus EPA, I should say. That's going to be a critical case that's going to play into here. The bottom line, bottom line here, Mike. Joe Biden doesn't have the legal authority to just single handedly wholesale cancellation of federal student loans and debt. By executive fee, there's a couple of acts that he's going to completely basically, he already ignored here. It's called the higher education act and the federal claims collection act. And it's clear that there are strict limits in terms of what it can and can't do what the president can and can't do here. And so at best Mike at best, what he could possibly do is to either delay the debt or the interest rate, but wholesale cancellation of the debt is clearly outside of outside of the scope.
Who Is the Sovereign in America?
"Is the sovereign in America? It's supposed to be us. That's why they hate Trump. Is that the people were actually sovereign for the first time in a while? No, no, no. And by the way, it's not Joe Biden who is actually sovereign is not the presidency. It's the IRA's, the independent regulatory agencies. That's why they needed to add 87,000 new IRS agents. That's why the FBI is so important. Who runs the country? The national security apparatus runs the country. The CIA who Republicans generously fund by giving them more money to go to Ukraine. The FBI who Republicans do not cut their funding of. The IRS, the EPA, this fourth branch of government, the unelected unknown, unchecked power, and yesterday was nothing more than a show off contest for the fourth branch of government. They wanted the flex their muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger at a bodybuilding contest in the 1980s. Look how powerful we are. We are the sovereign. We are supreme at the FBI. Fidelity bravery and integrity are the three values of the FBI. No, no, no. It's force. Done brutally in your face. That's what the FBI stands for. So why now? There's two answers to that. But again, we must reestablish who is. The sovereign. It's no longer you and me. That's the structure of the constitution. That's the intent. The national security apparatus runs the country. So why do they have to raid Mar-a-Lago? Now, over a national archives dispute, again, you raid people's homes if you think evidence is imminently going to be destroyed and you could prove to a judge because of that or the other reason you read somebody's home or you read somebody's business if you think there is a crime that is going to be committed at that moment. For example, that did Donald Trump have a thermonuclear weapon in the Donald J Trump ballroom at Mar-a-Lago that he intended to use against an airport,
The Inflation Increasement Act
"Secular fanaticism is the curse of 20th and 21st centuries. These people are fanatics. The mansion deal he calls it the bench and deal. Features massive new subsidies for solar and wind over the next few years, massive is correct. Plus tens of billions of dollars in other handouts designed to dramatically increase the percentage of these unreliable sources of energy on our grid. Number two, it aggressively restrict fossil fuels. It includes among other things new taxes on oil and gas. And worse of all, granting the Biden EPA essentially unlimited power, I don't understand that. Didn't think Supreme Court just ruled. Oh, but Congress can make a law. Well, they can make a lot of Supreme Court. It'll be going to court. Well, by the time it goes to court, everything will be shut down that matters. Essentially unlimited power to restrict fossil fuel projects. It gives billions of dollars to the left wing causes it includes billions for undefined environmental justice. Prager rule number 36. Whenever justice gets an adjective, it's not justice. Social justice is nothing to do with justice, environmental justice has nothing to do with justice. Racial justice has nothing to do with justice. Just know that. And you will begin to understand the double talk. You are willing and language of the left. There's justice, and there's injustice. Just like when you add a word to democracy, like people's democracy, it's a bad sign. North Korea, a gigantic concentration camp. Is the people's democratic republic of Korea. People's democratic. Okay. The White House commission report is an extreme environmental justice is an extreme left wing wish list. That says we must quote sunset investments by 2030. That is just 8 years from now. In fossil fuels plastics and are you ready? This proves that they're fanatics and lawyers. The environmentalist world. And nuclear power. It actually says we must sunset investment in nuclear power. They don't give a damn about carbon emissions, but give a damn about destroying the society we live in. Environmentalism is to the environment what communism was through workers. The great Green New Deal gives government limitless corruption inducing power. The deal itself has tens of billions that bureaucrats can allocate arbitrarily. Tens of billions. Manchin's requested permitting policies would give new illegitimate powers that are guaranteed to be exercised corruptly.
In towns plagued by raw sewage, EPA promises relief
"Residents in an Alabama county hope to finally see action on their massive sewage problems Charlie may holcomb has lived on pine street and haney ville Alabama for 35 years She had missed to being more than frustrated by the promises not kept when it comes to the failed septic systems and open sewage that flood her yard and yards of so many neighbors in the small town in lowndes county one of the poorest counties in the nation They're talking about do it The EPA and agriculture department have launched a pilot program to help lounge and ten other communities across the country assess sewage problems plan improvements and make those improvements happen Former New Orleans mayor Mitch landrieu is President Biden's infrastructure coordinator I mean in America you shouldn't have to worry about not having indoor plumbing or safe water I'm Tim McGuire
DOJ Commits More Resources Against Trump Allies Over 2020 Election
"Justice Department is adding prosecutors and resources to its investigation into the actions of former president Trump's allies to overturn the 2020 election According to people familiar with the matter is the related congressional hearings have turbocharged interest in mister Trump's own role in that effort And I always told you that the committee was basically a front for the Department of Justice that they are colluding And the committee is gaining access to information through the back door circumventing the protections at each person has as a means of turning that information over the department of injustice A Justice Department team focusing on elements of the investigation beyond the violence that the capital on January 6th has in recent weeks been given more personnel office space and an expanded mandate the people said Now we have a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign Of Trump Trump surrogates and Republicans Prosecutors have charged around 850 people A connection with the January 6th violence Including more than a dozen members of right-wing groups charged with engaging in a seditious conspiracy against the United States Have you ever heard of one of these marxists charged like this I can't think of one Certainly not a modern times Maybe Sarah rump can tell us Maybe she'll call nassar the EPA
What's Next for the Supreme Court?
"The long way for ro continues in legacy media. I mean, we're going to have this for a year. They're going to have 6 Shiva for a year over roe V wade and Planned Parenthood to be Casey. Meanwhile, the states are moving back to what they ought to be doing. I want to look ahead. I've done what's code as did a lot. I've written three Washington Post columns on West Virginia university alone. I want to look ahead to the next term, because I think it's going to be as big at least on the ending of use of race to award benefits or inflict penalty. And many other, what's ahead, Ilya, for next year. It's going to be another big term the court's not taking a year off. There is affirmative action in Harvard and UNC. There's the case called three O three creative, which builds on masterpiece cake shop, the baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same sex wedding. This time it's a graphic designer and a website. So no question that this is First Amendment protected activity, big cultural case. You mentioned West Virginia university, PA, which I think is the longest lasting decision this term prudentially. Next term a case like that also involves the EPA, but the clean water act and regulating the so called waters of the United States. If they're navigable, navigable waters, even if it's puddles, the EPA comes in and you can't build on the land, the case called sackett, second time that litigation has gotten to the Supreme Court. And California has been regulating the rest of the country. You might have heard in lots of different ways. There's a pork producer's case. You're thinking, agricultural regulation, California. Why is that important? Well, when they set the standard, whether it's for emissions, for agriculture, it's not like manufacturers, agricultural companies do one thing for the California market and another thing for the rest. So that sets national standards. And so there's something that lawyers call the dormant commerce clause or a state regulating interstate commerce that comes up. That's just a few of the big cases. And there's more. Election regulation, of course. When a state court rewrites what the legislature has done, this came up a number of times in Pennsylvania in the last election, but this is a case out of North Carolina. So the court is going to decide that, hopefully, once and for all.
Rep. Ralph Norman: This Biden Admin Has Sold Out
"This is all code code language congressman. This is all about eradicating our culture and our history. And using tax dollars to do it. Yes, I totally disregard for the taxpayers and Todd. I mean, what about the tree study? I think it was in Minneapolis where they had the racism that existed in three Canopy coverage. What about the EV initials to the EPA that you did in Charlotte, North Carolina? So that the public could hook up volumes of literature and read online to study the climate change. I mean, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. And it's hard money. You can't get this money back. No, and that's what irritates me as a physical conservative. This is just squandering our tax money. We don't have a lot, aside from the billions of dollars that we're sending to the Ukrainians to help them defend their border. And I know if you're hearing this from your constituents, but the latest report what $1.7 billion in additional funding we're sending over there to help pay for their gasoline for healthcare workers. What about the American people and their gas bills? Well, just buying administration is sold out. I mean, he sold out to China. Look what he's doing with this strategic goal. A million barrels a day has been shipped out. China's been one of the beneficiaries. But when you talk about the 1.9 trillion funding, it was 2700 pages long. No one read it. It doesn't go through regular order where you have debate and have amendments and like you normally would. So it's a train wreck. And the good news is I think the public is aware of it. I would guess it now. And the getting hit at every different
The Supreme Court's EPA Ruling Was the Beginning of Something Bigger
"In the Supreme Court's recent EPA decision, this was a West Virginia versus EPA, the issue front and center was the ability of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency to use the broad rubric of the clean air act. Cleaning up the air. To somehow wipe out the coal industry impose prohibitive regulations that would cause essentially called companies to go completely out of business. And proceed from there on the basis that this was a crusade that the EPA would lead to take on climate change. And the Supreme Court basically said, no, that's not something the EPA has any congressional authority to do. The actual clean air act was passed on the Nixon 1971, I believe. No one was even talking about climate change. That wasn't the delegation of authority. And so if Congress wants to make new laws that deal with climate change, that's a separate issue. They can. But the EPA can't just take it upon itself to launch this kind of a
In light of EPA court ruling, new focus on states' power
"The Supreme Court may have limited the power of the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants but its ruling did not touch the power of the states While democratic states have taken the lead on the most aggressive climate policy in recent years some Republican led states are also helping shift the U.S. power grid toward cleaner sources of energy a group of 24 states has formed the U.S. climate alliance most of those commonwealths are led by Democrats but a few including Vermont Massachusetts and Maryland have Republican governors together the state's account for 42% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and 18 of those states have set 100% clean energy goals I'm Shelly Adler
Matt Whitaker Reacts to the Supreme Court's EPA Ruling
"On a case that is not getting frankly as much in is because it takes a little bit more to discuss, but it's pretty plain and simple. The EPA court, I was excited as much about the West Virginia case, is any of the other case believe me, I was excited about the Dobbs case and others. But this EPA case is something you saw firsthand dealing in the administration level that executive branches have believed that they can have more power than Congress gives them to give us your thoughts on that. Well, I think there's always been an unholy alliance between the administrative state, the ABC admin, you know, unelected bureaucrats and the Congress who don't have to make the tough choices of what they're actually going to regulate. And so they've offloaded in very vague statutes. Some of these powers, whether it's to regulate water, regulate air, quality, regulate all these issues, and of course the administrative state has picked up the baton and run as far as they possibly can. This West Virginia case, I think you're right. I think it's a very important case. Probably not the most important because Dobbs, you know, certainly. Was revolutionary in its restoring the balance of power in the constitution between three branches in the states, but ultimately this West Virginia case versus the EPA is puts the administrative Genie back in the bottle. Makes Congress pass specific legislation to address these issues that are determined to be important. And again, a restores power to the people and takes it out of Washington, D.C., and out of these unelected bureaucrats. So
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"The Iliad and the Odyssey, the two great epics of classical antiquity. They're not the only epics of classical antiquity. We could think, for example, a Virgil's aeneid. A work immensely influential as we saw on Dante, but prior to Virgil, virtual was Roman. We have the two great Greek epics. Now there were other epics, but not as important as the Iliad and the Odyssey. We don't have most of them. Some of them we have parts of or quotations from those epics so we can kind of get an idea of what they said. But they are not of the quality. They are not of the comprehensiveness, the scope, the majesty, the sort of narrative genius and the depth and texture of the Iliad Abbey Odyssey. Now, sometimes these works are called canonical and they work canonical in ancient Greece in the sense that they were the main body of the educational curriculum. Moreover, they were the two kind of primary stories that people used as a, as a kind of moral instruction as a way of trying to understand life at its deepest level. And so it is tempting to compare the Iliad and the Odyssey, for example, to the Bible. But the Iliad and the Odyssey play a role somewhat analogous to the Bible, but with one key difference that is important to note that these are not sacred texts. These are not texts that have somehow come down by divine revelation, not at all. And so they are concerned with and the Greeks looked at them as ways of thinking about morality in the broadest sense. In other words, morality, not just in terms of what it is good to do. But how it is good to be and what it is good to love and the Iliad and the Odyssey both help instruct us in these in these questions. Now, these books are written in the oral tradition, which is to say that their original purpose was for recitation. I mean, it always got to remember that these, just as we read, Shakespeare's plays, we got to remember Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed on the stage. So you're reading them, but imaginatively you've got to think of them as being on the stage and in fact, in some ways you can get the best taste of them by watching the play performed on the stage and similarly here with the alien and the Odyssey, you have a Bard, a bar just kind of a poetic singer who would recite the entire poem, typically over many days. And the Iliad is loosely now divided, of course it's eventually written down into 24 books, typically three sections, and if you read it, you can kind of see that it's going to take about three days, three days to recite the entire, the entire poem. Now, the subject of the poem is the is the Trojan war. The Trojan war, the greatest war of antiquity. Now, there's an argument about this. In fact, there's an argument about this in antiquity when thucydides writes his Peloponnesian war. He essentially goes this, the Peloponnesian war, the war that I'm writing about as a historian and thucydides in some ways is the first historian. Some people would say that's herodotus, but herodotus is history is intermingled with fictional descriptions. Thucydides is giving a kind of, as he puts a concrete account of the Peloponnesian war, and he says it's the greatest war. Now when he says that he is competing with the Iliad. And part of what thucydides is saying is that unlike Homer who make stuff up and in a sense invents the literary narrative of the Iliad and then later the Odyssey, he goes I through cities, I'm going to kind of give you the way it really happened. I'm going to interview people. I'm going to talk to sources. So thucydides is making the claim for the primacy of history over you can say literary imagination. All right. Some people who come to the ilia in the Odyssey expect it to be a full story of the Trojan war. In other words, they think that we get the story of the Trojan war from the Iliad and the Odyssey. But this is in fact not the case. The Trojan war lasts for many years. And the events of the Iliad occur in a very small period in the 9th year of the war. So it's toward the end of the war. And the early events of the war, which I'll talk about, the events that precipitated the war. Homer assumes that you know them. These stories, the story of the Trojan war was well known to Homer's audience, Homer doesn't need to say. By the way, Achilles was the son of a human being peleus and a goddess status. He assumes you know all this. And so there's a background that is kind of assumed as Homer gets into the gets into the narrative. So the Iliad takes place in the 9th year of the war, and the Odyssey is the returning home of one guy, which is Odysseus after the Trojan war. So we have to keep in mind the entire war. And a Homer knows that the audience, by the way, knows the outcome. So when things occur in the narrative, that are not known to the characters. For example, this guy is going to be killed. Homer knows he's going to be killed and Homer's audience knows he's going to be killed and all of that colors the way that we read and introduces an element of fatalism and even futility in reading both the Iliad and the Odyssey. In a sense, the future is known to us. It's known to homo's audience, but it's not known to people who are in the narrative itself..
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"A list of conservative donors. And talk a little bit about the letter and your reaction to it. So of course this is a chain letter, but here it goes. Dear Debbie, as an unapologetic conservative in the United States House of Representatives, I'm honored to lead the charge for our Republican agenda and help shape a better future for our party and our nation. Oh, my God. Now I gotta say, you know, looking over the letter. The letter itself is quite conservative. It talks about tax cuts, it talks about stopping Biden and talks about stopping Biden's border policies. It hits all he talks about the Green New Deal and the radical legislation, it attacks build back better. You know, together we will stand strong against the Biden administration's attack on our fundamental principles. Now, yeah. Here's one thing it doesn't talk about. Not one word about the January 6th committee, which is kind of interesting. If Liz Cheney was so proud, she felt that she's standing up for true Republican principles. You would think that front and center it's not often you have a congresswoman from Wyoming kind of be the lead figure in a national commission to investigate this important incident, but not a word about January 6th. Yeah, yeah, and the human rights violations that is taking place with conservatives being locked up right now. Not a word. Not a word, not a word. No, interestingly, she had a debate with the other candidates, including Harriet hagman, and the election issue came up. And she's like, you know, Liz Cheney is like, you won't admit that this was the most secure election ever. And Harry hickam to her credit actually mentioned 2000 meals and mentioned that it wasn't the most secure election. And my point of Liz Cheney is Liz, where is the proof? Who has ever shown that this was the most secure election ever or to put it differently, that there was less fraud in 2020 than in all previous elections. Where's the demonstration? Where's the evidence that shows that? Liz Cheney, even though she has this letter that acts like she is just super conservative and doesn't like Biden clearly she wants to get Biden on her side because as you know, we talked about this, she's the darling, really, of the Democrats right now. And she's the one that's going to be asked to go on CNN when she loses her election because she will. And so she's going to go on MSNBC. She's going to be the liberal, the conservative token, I guess. She's the left's favorite Republican. And she's happy to play that role. She's willing to do that. The other thing that's interesting is that she has been appealing to Democrats. That's right. That's right. She actually did that. She wants them to cross over. Thankfully, yes, thankfully, and you pointed this out because they have open elections, right? So they can do this. But you pointed out, and don't worry, there's not that many Democrats in Wyoming. Not enough to save Liz Cheney. And she is 30 points behind Harry and Hagen in this election. I'm only going to lose that election and I hope she does. Let's talk about Cassidy Hutchinson. Here's my latest tweet on it. By my estimate that canonization, the halo around Cassidy hutcheson lasted just a few hours. Already her defenders have stopped talking about her. She was useful to them for a brief moment and then she wasn't. And now she returns to the obscurity from which she came. Initially, they were trying to salvage her. They were like, well, she was merely narrating what she had been told. But of course, that was the bombshell. That was what the media jumped on to the idea that Trump's throwing his food, the idea that Trump is grabbing for the steering wheel. This is the salacious detail that made the story. As you know, I mean, the commission, they asked her to come on because they wanted people to think that this was true. They probably knew it wasn't. I mean, this is hearsay from hearsay from hearsay. Who admits that in the evidence ever, right? But they wanted people to think that Trump was this kind of person. They wanted him. It was unhinged. They wanted people to think he was completely unhinged, that he would reach over and try to I mean, imagine trying.
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"At a time when the Supreme Court has been going our way in a big way on key issues abortion, gun rights, religious freedom, there's one case that went the other way. And that is the court allowing the Biden administration to get rid of Trump's so called remain in Mexico policy right its own policy and presumably allow illegals in the country pending the resolution of their asylum cases. Now, this, I think, is opening the door to a lot of bad stuff that the Biden people are. There's a lot of bad stuff. That old senile corrupt man in The White House has blood on his hands. And lots of it. I mean, look at this latest case out of Texas. It's absolutely horrific and heartbreaking. Yeah, and so there's a CNN I hate to quote CNN, but there's an actual good CNN article that says that 53 migrants. Yeah, so 53 migrants died in a truck in San Antonio because the air conditioning went out in that truck. And so four people have been arrested because, of course, they were complicit. They knew that these people were in their truck. It's been a hundred plus degrees in Texas for like all month long. So these people did not stand a chance, right? And so I think what we're getting at here is that this is happening not just, it didn't just happen there. It's been happening all over Texas, really. People smug being smuggled in in trucks and dying. Do you quote it to me one of the guys, the dad is, you know, his son paid $6000 to the cartels to smugglers to bring him over. And he was looking for a better life, and of course now he ends up with no life. Yeah, yeah. You know, in some ways, I guess you can't blame the legal so much. There are struggling to make a better life for themselves, but you have to blame. I blame Trump. I'm Trump, I'm sorry. I went Biden, of course. No, Trump had had really good policies. I mean, he basically he knew that these people couldn't come over without being without being part of this whole rogue operation. Right. And so he knew it was dangerous. People and for a long time, I mean, I grew up in the Rio Grande valley, migrants were always coming over the border. And they would die because it's very hot down in the valley in that desert part of the valley. And they would die. They had no water. And so, but now, this is what's really interesting. It says at least 6 migrants died and ten others were found in three separate human smuggling cases in Texas over the last 24 hours. 24 hours. So this is getting out of hand and I think that well, I noticed the media is downplaying it. I think the reason they're doing that is that they know it makes Biden look bad. Yeah, it is, it is bad. It should. He does look bad because he's what he's doing. His policies are leading to this. They're encouraging people to come over. And do this. And so let's pivot to a telling vignette from involving Texas involving Myra Flores. And she's now in Congress. Now she's going to have to run again this November, and she's running against an incumbent Democrat. And so it's going to be a tough race. And hard fought. But very important one. So she was in Washington D.C. with her family. And there's Nancy Pelosi who I guess dutifully was present at this ceremony. Ceremony. And you have this little scene where the little girl is right next to Pelosi and Pelosi just kind of elbows.
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"They've been under the court's exorcism. Exactly, because as we've talked about, the striking down road does not mean that women can not have abortion. If they want to go to California, if they want to go to New York or any other state Washington, they can have abortions and sadly some places even allow abortions after the baby's actually born, which is downright murder, but you know, they don't, they don't care. They really don't. I mean, in the visual images of these leftists, you do see an almost, it's almost as if they know they're on the side of evil. They're embracing the kind of almost pagan imagery of evil and sacrificing of the babies. That whole. Sure to me. Or even saying things like, I'm going to get pregnant now so I can have abortions. I mean, think about that. Think of how does that? How perverted you have to have to be very perverted. A very sick. And just, you know, again, the fact that they're acting like we're just taking away like their life, when actually what we're doing. And you know, another thing, too, is being pro life means that we want even those freaks, their babies to be born. Yes. You know, and so if we were that hateful, why would we want their babies to be born? Why would we want more of them around? And the truth of it is, you know, talk about, you know, maybe abortion is an inconvenience, but all kids impose inconveniences on your life and the simple truth of it is that's part of what it means to be a parent. Yeah, but I think it's more joy than an inconvenience. Yeah, of course. Of course. And again, if you are, if you're a woman who feels like you can not care for your child, give it up for adoption. There are too many families going to China and Russia for babies. We don't have enough babies in America. And so give up your baby for adoption. They're going to have a wonderful life with parents that love them. And there is a shortage of babies in this country. Why? Because they're being aborted and now maybe just maybe. Those women that aren't going to go cross state lines to get abortions can actually have a baby and give it up for adoption.
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"We're talking about these line Mark religious freedom cases and Kelly, I didn't realize but that is great news that the is it lemon versus kurzman, the idea that a religious symbol is only permissible if it serves a purely secular purpose. I mean, if stated that way, it would, it would, it would seem to enshrine a kind of prejudice against religion, so it seems just wonderful that this support for a kind of institutional hostility to religion is removed. Let's turn to the case in May, which as I understand it involved tuition subsidies and places in Maine that didn't have public schools. The government basically gives you some money, says you can pick a private school of your choice. And Maine was excluding using that money at religious schools. So talk about, again, what the issue was, what the other side was saying and what the court decided. What was going on in Maine is they, most of their school districts don't even have a public school. And so they have allowed for like a hundred years. Parents to choose where to put their tax money for the school. They could pick any school they want. Public or private, even private schools out of state, even private schools out of the country. And so, but the only limitation they came back in, a number of years ago and said, but we're going to add one limitation. Any schools that teach from a religious viewpoint, you can't choose those schools. So I could say no better than Alito with this question during the oral argument. He asked the main attorney. So a CRT school is okay, right? Under this law. A white supremacist school, okay. But a religious school not okay. And that kind of pointed it out. You could pick the all girls school where all the rich people go. You could use your tax money there, but you couldn't use your tax money at a religious school. And that's just overt discrimination on the basis of religion. So we filed a lawsuit along with the institute for justice on behalf of parents who had lost the choice that they needed for their children. In some cases, it wasn't even that it was religious. It was just the best school. But they couldn't pick it because it was also a religious. And court ruled that this is a violation of the free exercise clause. The government can't create a program and then exclude the religious people or groups where the religious nature. And so number one, this is a large win for school choice. Everywhere in the country that has school choice that lets parents choose the best for their kids. It's now clear, religious choices can not be excluded. You can't say you can't have Christian schools. You can't do that. And so that's going to really open things up, I think, for parents to choose what's really best for their kids and make a big difference in the future. But again, a lot of people didn't see how this is even broader than that. And that is, and this was written by chief justice Roberts, okay? So 6 to three, the three liberals were expect sodium aor Kagan and Breyer. And but what Robert stead was, he didn't really talk about school choice. What he said is when the government creates a program where they provide benefits in a general fashion, you can not exclude religious groups or discriminate on the basis of religion. So that's so much broader than just school choice. So let's take what's happened with roe V wade and all these communities and states. They're looking now. How do I help adoption? How do I help, you know, they get create a large program that provides benefits. Can they exclude the religious groups, the churches that everybody else who's trying to help and get in there and get that money to the people who need it? They can't. This decision would say all government programs, you can exclude the religious groups, and you can't discriminate against them on the basis of religion. So you can see what a large sort of wide application because there are a lot of government programs that are providing these type of things and all the religious groups and entities have a right to participate fully in solving these problems. And that I think is a big win that might come into play really quickly. You know, after roe V wade and all the programs that are probably going to be coming into place to try to help unwed mothers and all the difficult situations that are going to be out there to try to stand with life. I mean, I think it's fascinating Kelly that the nondiscrimination principle that is itself not explicitly in the First Amendment is being very effectively used by the court here to say you can't have first class and second class citizens. You can't make religious people into second class citizens. Thank you very much for joining me. I really appreciate it..
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"He's a constitutional scholar. He's argued before the Supreme Court testified before the House and Senate. One numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases. He was named one of the 25 greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century by Texas lawyer Kelly welcome to the podcast. I mean, you should have a big smile on your face. This has been a pretty momentous week to massive victories for religious freedom. One, of course, the coach, the football coach spraying on the field and the other the case in Maine that involves sort of tuition subsidies and will I want to talk about both. But let's begin with the coach. Now that was a case that first liberty, that was your case. So talk about what the key issue was in that case and what the court what the court decided and what the other side was pushing for. Well, the case was pretty simple. Most people understand coach made a pledge to God that after every game, win or lose, he would go to the 50 yard line when people were milling around, checking their cell phones, talking to friends. He would the first thing he would do is go to a knee for 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds tops, and just give thanks for the privilege of coaching those young men. And he did that for over 7 years until the school told them that if he did that again, they were going to fire him. And he did because he made a pledge and they fired him for going on his on his knee for about 20 seconds and saying a silent prayer. And, you know, the argument, of course, on our side was that he has free speech rights. He has free exercise of religion, right? So under the First Amendment. And they tried to argue that, well, no, some student, you know, might see him from 200 yards away and feel coerced to pray because he's praying. And so of course, this is a really extreme argument that what they argued in court was that any person who works for the government is therefore a government actor and can never do anything religious. It would mean that a teacher could be fired for bowing their head over their meal. A Jewish teacher could be fired for wearing their yarmulke. I mean, it goes on and on and on. But it's a very extreme position. They were arguing. The Supreme Court and one of the things dinesh that people don't understand is this is the first case in the history of our country that's ever issued a ruling on the free exercise rights of teachers or coaches. It's fairly amazing. We're here this long as a country, this is the first one. And so this press to really is significant for every teach, every teacher, every coach, about their First Amendment rights. The court said, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. It was 6 three. And they said, look, you know, this is a violation of free speech. This is a violation of the free exercise of religion. And, you know, when we respect and tolerate other people's religion, we follow the best of our traditions. This idea that we strip away people's First Amendment rights because somebody is intolerant who's watching them is not an American principle and they rejected it. The three dissenters led by justice Sotomayor said that this was a horrible. Strike to the separation of church and state, which is odd that because separation of church and state, those words are nowhere to be found in the constitution, number one. So I was kind of embarrassed that she's talking about this. And number two, the concept of separation of church and state is talking about the institutions of the church and the state. We don't want the church of the baptist church to control the government. We don't want the government to control the church. There's no institution. I mean, it's Joe Kennedy. It's a guy versus the government. What's beautiful about this case, I think, is here's the powerful government. They have a lot of power, but there's one thing in this country more powerful than the government. It's the constitution. And one individual, which could stand up against the government and win because his fundamental right to free speech and the free exercise of religion was more important. So on that level, that's what most people know. There's sort of an extra level that most people don't know. And that is the court did something really, really significant in this case. There is a precedent that has been on the books for 50 years. It's sort of the roe V wade of religious liberty. Perverting the constitution, making the government sort of hostile to religion, which is something that the founders would have been appalled by. And that's why our whole lives we've seen attacks on religion in public on prayer on all this, not because the founders thought that, but because of this case called lemon, that was passed and that was decided in 1971. And four years ago, we had to bladensburg cross case, which is a veterans memorial that was put up to honor those who had died and World War I. And instead of just going for protecting that memorial, we saw Gorsuch, we saw Kavanaugh on the court and we thought, you know, let's try to go after lemon has caused all this problem. And we won the case, but more importantly, 5, four, they said, we're not following lemon. And that was a real crack in the armor of lemon. But it would only apply really to public displays. And the idea of getting that into the schools, we talked as lawyers, all of our team and said, you know, we need to get rid of them in the schools. It's created all this hostility, but it's going to take probably ten years to get there because, you know, impressionable children, there's like 30,000 citations to lemon on cases in the school, the banning prayer, banning all these different things. And so we didn't even really push hard for that in this case. Well, I'll be darned in the middle of the opinion. They come out and say, we've long abandoned lemon. And then they cite our American legion. Our blames were cross case. And then the descent says, this is a toll reversal of lemon. So this is much bigger than just coach Kennedy, even then just the rights of teachers and coaches, this is a sea change in stopping all this hostility to religion by our government in the schools. We still have to build out what all that means, but it's sort of like the roe V wade in religious liberty just got taken down in this case. And most people didn't notice that, but those who practice in this area are talking about what a major sea change this says, the coach Kennedy case will be one of those 50 year cases of a turn towards religious freedom in a very positive way. Kelly, let's take a pause when we come back on a probe lemon but also turn to the case in Maine. We'll be right back. Inflation is hitting us all the way to hurts, our pocketbook, that's why I started using upside. Now upside is an incredible app for anyone who.
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Guys, what a perfect time to bring back to the podcast, our friend Kelly shackleford, he's the president and CEO of first liberty institute. He's a constitutional scholar. He's argued before the Supreme Court testified before the House and Senate. One numerous landmark First Amendment and religious liberty cases. He was named one of the 25 greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century by Texas lawyer Kelly welcome to the podcast. I mean, you should have a big smile on your face. This has been a pretty momentous week to massive victories for religious freedom. One, of course, the coach, the football coach spraying on the field and the other the case in Maine that involves sort of tuition subsidies and will I want to talk about both. But let's begin with the coach. Now that was a case that first liberty, that was your case. So talk about what the key issue was in that case and what the court what the court decided and what the other side was pushing for. Well, the case was pretty simple. Most people understand coach made a pledge to God that after every game, win or lose, he would go to the 50 yard line when people were milling around, checking their cell phones, talking to friends. He would the first thing he would do is go to a knee for 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds tops, and just give thanks for the privilege of coaching those young men. And he did that for over 7 years until the school told them that if he did that again, they were going to fire him. And he did because he made a pledge and they fired him for going on his on his knee for about 20 seconds and saying a silent prayer. And, you know, the argument, of course, on our side was that he has free speech rights. He has free exercise of religion, right? So under the First Amendment. And they tried to argue that, well, no, some student, you know, might see him from 200 yards away and feel coerced to pray because he's
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"As the Supreme Court moves to the end of this very important term, a couple of other important decisions that just came out. One of them did not seem to go our way, and that is the Supreme Court allows Biden, allows Biden to end the Trump era remain in Mexico policy. So to refresh Trump had the policy that basically said, listen, if you apply for asylum in the United States, you're not going to be let into the United States. You got to stay in Mexico. And then when you turn comes up for a hearing, you can show up and have the hearing, but this idea that we're going to let you in in the meantime disperse you within the country, hope that you show up for your hearing, that's not going to happen. Now, the Biden administration wanted to rewrite the policy, have its own policy, which in a sense has much greater latitude for people to come through, come through the border and stay in the United States pending their cases. And the Supreme Court basically said, well, there was a Trump judge in Texas who basically said, no, Biden can not change the Trump era policy because the immigration law is passed by Congress. Does not permit these illegals to make their way into the country. But the Supreme Court here held no, they said, look, each administration gets to draft its own policy. They seemingly don't think that this is such a departure from the law itself. So it's within the discretionary latitude, I guess, of the Biden administration to make these kinds of rules. So this is clearly a victory for the Biden administration. Now, I'm going to talk about the big win on our side. And then I'm going to show really that all these decisions by the court have a common unifying thread. They actually all operate from the same premise. The court is actually being very consistent here. So in the other decision, the decision involves the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. I think I mentioned this yesterday. The EPA has been writing all these rules to fight climate change, and they're basically one thing they're trying to do is make it almost impossible for the coal industry. The function in this country. And the way they do this is they take the clean air act, which was passed by Congress, and they expanded in such a way that it enables them to pass all kinds of rules that set certain emissions and put caps on how much emissions can occur. The net effect is we are almost you may say deliberately killing a major industry in our own country and doing it in the name of climate change. So this goes to the Supreme Court and it goes to the Supreme Court on the part of plaintiffs who say basically listen. Yes, there is a clean air act. But the clean air act was passed long before this climate change hoopla. Moreover, the Congress delegates to the EPA, the authority to clean up the air. And the EPA does have the right to make rules consistent with that delegation of power. But no, the EPA can't just say, well, since we have a clean air act, we're not going to take all these new issues of climate change, the oceans are rising, the temperature is going up, the global temperature, and we will now declare ourselves. The enforcer of this climate change ideology, and the court goes, where's your authority to do that in the clean air act? I'm now going to read from the court's decision. When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may seem natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the constitution does not authorize agencies to do this. It goes on to say they can not be quote substitutes for laws passed by the people's representatives. In other words, an agency of the executive branch can't just decide what Congress can pass a law. Well, that's okay. We'll sort of make the law ourselves in the name of passing a rule. And this was a very interesting decision. 6 to three, and the conservatives on one side and the liberals on the other. Now, very interestingly, the reaction to this has been kind of ferocious. He has Rashida Tlaib, fascist scotus, fascist codis, as of scotus was not, well, scotus isn't elected, but it's part of an elected scheme. In which the court plays a referee role and a guardian role of the constitution. Fascist scotus, guts the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions and fight climate change. The federal government will be restricted from regulating anything of significance in the absence of a clear congressional directive to do so. Yes, this is what the court says. The court basically goes, whose job is it to pass laws in this country? Congress, who's in Congress, Rashida Tlaib, and so the idea here is do your job Congress if you want to regulate climate change, you pass laws to that effect. But no, one not going to let an unelected agency do this. So the unifying theme here, let's think about the remain in Mexico decision. This decision and the abortion decision. In all three cases, the court is basically saying the same thing. The court is basically saying that in a democratic society, laws are passed by the legislature. The legislature is the one that makes the rules. In the case of abortion, it's the state legislatures, abortion is now deflected back to the states, you handle that issue. Similarly, with remain in Mexico, there's a congressional law. Yes, the executive branch has some interpretive discretion in enforcing it. And here with regard to the EPA, the EPA, again, is charged with carrying out what Congress has to do. If Congress wants it to do more, give the EPA more authority, pass a new law, but just because you can't pass a new law, you don't have the votes. Doesn't mean the EPA can decide, well, you know what? We'll just take it upon ourselves to go right ahead. The Supreme Court courts answer is you don't have any authority.
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"The EPA has been writing all these rules to fight climate change, and they're basically one thing they're trying to do is make it almost impossible for the coal industry. The function in this country. And the way they do this is they take the clean air act, which was passed by Congress, and they expanded in such a way that it enables them to pass all kinds of rules that set certain emissions and put caps on how much emissions can occur. The net effect is we are almost you may say deliberately killing a major industry in our own country and doing it in the name of climate change. So this goes to the Supreme Court and it goes to the Supreme Court on the part of plaintiffs who say basically listen. Yes, there is a clean air act. But the clean air act was passed long before this climate change hoopla. Moreover, the Congress delegates to the EPA, the authority to clean up the air. And the EPA does have the right to make rules consistent with that delegation of power. But no, the EPA can't just say, well, since we have a clean air act, we're not going to take all these new issues of climate change, the oceans are rising, the temperature is going up, the global temperature, and we will now declare ourselves. The enforcer of this climate change ideology, and the court goes, where's your authority to do that in the clean air act? I'm now going to read from the court's decision. When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may seem natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the constitution does not authorize agencies to do this. It goes on to say they can not be quote substitutes for laws passed by the people's representatives. In other words, an agency of the executive branch can't just decide what Congress can pass a law. Well, that's okay. We'll sort of make the law ourselves
"epa" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"As the Supreme Court moves to the end of this very important term, a couple of other important decisions that just came out. One of them did not seem to go our way, and that is the Supreme Court allows Biden, allows Biden to end the Trump era remain in Mexico policy. So to refresh Trump had the policy that basically said, listen, if you apply for asylum in the United States, you're not going to be let into the United States. You got to stay in Mexico. And then when you turn comes up for a hearing, you can show up and have the hearing, but this idea that we're going to let you in in the meantime disperse you within the country, hope that you show up for your hearing, that's not going to happen. Now, the Biden administration wanted to rewrite the policy, have its own policy, which in a sense has much greater latitude for people to come through, come through the border and stay in the United States pending their cases. And the Supreme Court basically said, well, there was a Trump judge in Texas who basically said, no, Biden can not change the Trump era policy because the immigration law is passed by Congress. Does not permit these illegals to make their way into the country. But the Supreme Court here held no, they said, look, each administration gets to draft its own policy. They seemingly don't think that this is such a departure from the law itself. So it's within the discretionary latitude, I guess, of the Biden administration to make these kinds of rules. So this is clearly a victory for the Biden
"epa" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Back. You know, one thing about it is what the court said what EPA can not do, which is require generation shifting from coal to gas to wind and solar. But it didn't say what EPA could do. In fact, some of Robert's opinion suggests that maybe EPA has other tools, but he didn't say what they are. So I guess we won't find out what EPA thinks it can do for quite a while. I think the proposed schedule calls for a new replacement of the clean power plan in 20,024. So we're kind of a long way right now from knowing what more does EPA think it can do in the electricity sector. We know that EPA has adopted very strong fuel efficiency standards in the mobile source category and we also know that the auto industry major components of the auto industry support those much stronger goals. Now there's litigation, of course, challenging EPA's fuel economy standards. But I think looking at the decision in the West Virginia case, I don't see anything in that decision that threatens the fuel economy standards, which are actually going to accomplish even more emission reduction than the power plant standards would have. Does the majority address the crisis of climate change with the consequences so apparently in the country already do they address that or just ignore it? They ignore it. You don't see a word about it until you get to Kagan's dissent. So no, the 6 to three majority sees this as a pure kind of intellectual question of administrative law and statutory interpretation and do we give any deference to the agencies interpretation and do we think that the language of the statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation? Roberts actually sat that the clean power plan that generation shifting approach is quote a plausible interpretation of the text because of course the text of the statute simply says, the best system for emission reduction. Well, my goodness, the best system is definitely generation shifting. That's the most efficient, most cost effective, most reliable and most significant way to achieve reductions, but he said the mere fact that something
"epa" Discussed on Here & Now
"They really were impacted by what they saw at. It made them feel less confident or safe to speak out social learn. Is this a sense that this is a pattern here of intimidating or silencing these scientists it does appear to be so. I've written two stories in the series so far i one was based on for whistle blowers who And that's the majority there there. I believe seven in their division so and for them not all at the same time had worked in this new chemicals divisions so. That's that's a hefty portion there and then since that for his story others have Have also spoken out. Not not with her. Name's verse for were named but in my second story at five people the four plus another end. I'm working on another story now. That has even more. So what's happened to these scientists. Some of them have given their name some of them less. So are they still on. Their jobs have been. They've been kicked out of their jobs. And what's their situation. Well they're all still working at epa but three of the four have been moved out of that division that i was writing about the new chemicals program so of the original four so they all want to continue working epa and. I should note that these are not the kind of folks who you might expect. You know they don't fit the the the sort of troublemaker stereotype. you know. they're they really thought long and hard about coming out and all of them told me that they were speaking about this publicly because they felt that they had no choice. These people who were chose to work in environmental science because they wanted to protect the public from toxic exposure is and they felt that that the american public based real public health threat. One of the really shocking things pieces of evidence that was shared with me was some audio of a meeting that took place at epa where the with a software engineer consultant who is helping them systematize and kind of improve the system said deal with the new chemical risk assessment process and in the meeting that we have audio of one of the managers actually asked for a little button for the for the consultant to create a little button that will enable her to dismiss the concerns of the scientists in a single click. And and so. That's what you'll hear. Now is the discussion that they're having about installing this button.
"epa" Discussed on GovExec Daily
"I think we'll need more time to see how that plays out There's a task force. Like i mentioned the executive order. The president signed That created a task force to help agencies rewrite their scientific integrity policies bring them up to snuff and some of the stuff is still being implemented across government You know we've seen some agencies put forward new policies or new statements Committing to that sort of openness and transparency and commitment to empowering their their career scientists. So you know we'll have to see what sort of reviews that those get and once they're implemented And you know to what extent they're they're followed through honest one thing to have a policy on paper but to actually execute on it requires a different level of commitment. And you know there are certainly saying all the right things. Everyone in the administration is is for the most part you know in their public comments saying all the right things in terms of you know we. We want to let we will follow the science. You know obviously you hear that in relation to the pandemic on a daily basis from the administration but this is You know as as this story shows it in the chemicals. Division of epa That it that sort of ethos is relevant at all throughout government and It's like i said they're having the right communications on it and you know we'll have to wait and see what the follow through is there. I guess there's you know you could say there's a couple warning signs that may like i said from the outset that maybe this isn't going exactly as as some of these groups had hoped but You know we haven't like you said seen any of the really really major red flag incidents. Okay well let's let's end up on The bcc report the time report. Basically is a large alarm and the bite. Administration is dang a lot of the right things but also calling on moore fossil-fuel investments where we compare and contrast the by administration versus trump administration on something as important as climate or. We've certainly seen a very different approach. really throughout the Across the board. But you know you can look at the biden. Administration's budget proposal Which had massive funding requests for many different agencies. Epa noah transportation In many of energy to to tackle research further climate issues That that these were things that the trump budgets were all seeking to cut So it's it's it's pre- Night and day You know the ability of scientists to.
"epa" Discussed on GovExec Daily
"In twenty twenty. Epa put out a directive that prohibit some scientists from discussing their work amongst themselves but outside groups want the policy rescinded saying that this policy prevents government scientists from protecting the public from potentially hazardous materials. Other groups say the policy is difficult to justify from a scientific perspective administration that pledged to be more amenable to science and science space policy. That directive is quite curious indeed senior correspondent. Eric cats is covering the story for us. Here exact. He joins me now to discuss the role of science in the by administration and epa policy. Welcome back to the program to be here. So how did this directive come about and what did Here on the group choose spoke to Say about it. A prohibiting scientists discussing their work. Yeah so it seems to be An an unofficial policy. That epa has epa said. They are maintaining that. They don't have any official policy on the books that that is preventing These scientists from communicating with each other but You know we do have a evidence suggesting that Employees are being Some examples of employees being disciplined for doing exactly that Or getting some some sort of reprimand So What we're seeing. Is you know sort of as you outlined employees being told that when they're working on these assessments to approve new substances new chemicals That they're not allowed to sort of run. It past their colleagues like would be typical practice. A can you review my work here. Can you look over the science underlying this. make sure. there's no significant errors. That i died in my eyes. And cross my ts. What we're being told is. Is that these offices that are impacted. Here are understaffed so And there's a lot of new employees without much experience so they they will rely typically on their colleagues for that sort of input and expertise and that not being able to do that is is a big hindrance to them. You know they're they're things. There are chemicals being approved that You know some groups are suggesting while the really hasn't gone through the same rigorous process that It should have because you know. There's not the sort of collaboration happening In that review process there's accusations also about political pressure on in around these offices at epa. What's the sign that end of story there and you know the broader question is is epa management. Interfering in scientific decisions. Yes that's the interesting context to all of this is there's been.
"epa" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"One way or another worked for the pesticide industry. You know. I heard from a number of people that the pesticide companies are. Just very president. Epa there in the lobby. There bopping around. I heard they're of know all the the names of the people who are actually making you know decisions in the scientists who are working on their products. And i've heard that for the most part. They're very helpful and nice. But that is until you do something that pisses him off. And then i've also heard that you know if you get on the wrong side. They will do all they can to get rid of you and to make sure that you know you were taken off their products. But in terms of fostering those sort of positive side of the relationship there are also a lot of what they call crap tourists and farm tourists where companies or individual farms sometimes Companies sometimes trade associations will invite the staff scientists to farm or to visit and look at how they use pesticides over the past twenty five years. The tour has grown from the north dakota grain growers to clued the corn and soybean associations and other groups. They're educating officials about the things that affect growers the most having these people out here and showing these people how we use pesticides is is a great education tool for them in their future work with labeling of new products and relabeling of existing problems and you can see how people would say well. This is important knowledge. This is what these folks are working on and yet what i heard from people who went on these tours. Is that spending the day with with these representatives of the manufacturer's products that they're in the middle of assessing in like hearing chatting them up in being friendly and sharing a plate of barbecue with them. They felt that they were sort. Just more sympathetic to the industry point of view just by virtue of hanging out and spending the day informally and there's a whole range of them. You can go look at potato farms and you can go watch how pesticides are sprayed from planes. And it is a way of certainly increasing the intimacy between both sides the regulator and the regulated starch baker. The president of the united states..
"epa" Discussed on The Last American Vagabond
"But they tell me. I'm a fake us conspiracy theories for making that clinton if this exemption has been granted to georgia tennessee state. Governments areas of particular concern include. Break rooms locker. Rooms bathrooms lobbies eating areas food. Preparation areas despite not being being around food e says eating areas within healthcare facilities interstate transportation food processing facilities indoor spaces within buildings including government facilities where people are conducting activity deemed essential by the state. And you can tell them. Let me ask you this. You're dealing with a bunch of a bunch of elderly people in healthcare facilities in nursing homes. Are we going to move out of the rooms and continue to and then you're going to flush the area than and where you're going to keep them while that's happening a clearly guys. We can see that. This is going to be abused and this will be used in places where people are. That's my opinion. And i think it's very clear that this is what is being floated and we know that this has this more in a minute. I'll show you directly from the sheet itself that the t. e. g. in particular has negative effects and and we're talking about people in already potential. Potentially dangerous situations elderly people. That are already in dangerous positions with all of this. They're already in. You know at risk to a lot of things and when you're going to do is going to force them to wear masks your which increases the risk of other bacterial infections. You're going to pump the stuff in different areas which which if they breathe in will potentially increase that same concept. It's almost like they want this to happen at some level. Call me crazy. Conspiracy theorist punny do today. We are approving the first ever airborne antiviral product that will help fight the spread of the novel corona virus that causes covid nineteen according to the epa administer. So he himself says are approving. That's not what that was. It's not approving approving an emergency use authorization or excuse me emergency exemption. We are deeply grateful to the diligent teams at epa who were tireless in evaluating.
"epa" Discussed on The Last American Vagabond
"Thousand four to two thousand twenty all finding verifiable health effects from wearing face masks including scientifically verified reduction blood oxygen level. All of them clock study. I just showed you regard to infections. And how it increases only random controlled trial. You're gonna find even continue to site observational. All kinds of things and flat out lied that. There's no random controlled trials in regard to cloth mass. And just some of the studies on the efficacy of mass in regard to what the point is we're making that they do not have a statistically significant reduction. Statistically significant reduction in transmission met some of these studies. In fact make the argument that they have a purpose and they do this and do that but at the end of the day they come to the same conclusion. There is not a statistically significant reduction in transmission which is the only thing that matters in regard to especially when you remember that they are in fact causing health problems. Way more in my opinion than production of blood oxygen level. We're talking about hypotheses. Hoppy cap hyper campania potential issues with bacterial pneumonia and your lungs potential period. I'll disease gum disease. It's bad i mean it's this is only because we're wearing them in these temperatures with moisture for extended periods of time that's why and they comparatively well. These nurses do all the time. Don't ask any honest nurse. They will tell you that they do not wear these things for all day long every time they moved them. They'd ask you the point. Someone just made even when they do have to wear them first period of time they can take them off when they want to. They can go somewhere. Take a break. I mean that's not happening for us right now. But jumping into the next discussion. Which is the most important part of today's show arche junior posted this study or excuse me this article. Georgia and tennessee are the first states to gain approval to defuse chemical known to trigger asthma and other series respiratory illnesses. That's why i hate those. Oh yeah i'm just gonna go. Yeah leave it there. That's why did that last time. Leave it on that page horrible. You know honest mainstream media with pop-ups in and pay walls and it's ridiculous other series respiratory illnesses schools healthcare food processing facilities and state transportation. What are you know. Here's a great article. Epa approved chemical heir treatment against cova despite known health hazards in mid january. That's really important to me. That's my point before. In mid january the epa approved a request from two states. I am in that's why. Po box is tennessee approves requests from to southern states. So how is nobody talking about this. I'm looking. I didn't see it so it's pretty clear. This is something that they're not advertising aggressively to be like look at how great this is. Why would that be..