Martini Rambles

By Craig Shirley - FOXNews.com
January 20, 2010

During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama shocked the liberal establishment (and infuriated Bill Clinton as a pleasant byproduct) by calling Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election and presidency monumental. In other words he was a “game changing” leader, if you will.

Obama knew what he was doing, even as many suspect he is at best only a mediocre student of American presidential history.

To wit, he almost never quotes previous chief executives or cites American historical precedents to support his Jacobinistic policies.

Perhaps it is because no previous chief executive ever attempted to make Americans wholly depended upon Big Government.

Clearly, President Obama and his supporters want historians -- and indeed all Americans -- to see his presidency by the same light as Reagan’s; that his time of office will also be recorded as a political upheaval. This remains to be seen, but it is instructive to recall that Clinton was also obsessed with his place in history --calling in historians late in his second term-bewailing the fact that he never had any big crisis to confront, like some of his predecessors and thus, his eight years would not get the due he felt it deserved.

Reagan, more self-confident, never lamented to historians, instead accepting the judgment of the American people and not self-puffing elitist members of the academy.

Obama’s supporters are now bending over backwards to make the case that Reagan’s poll numbers sagged, just as Obama’s have, in the face of difficult economic times. In fact, the “Carter Recession” which the fortieth chief executive inherited was far, far worse that the “Bush Recession” that the forty-fourth president became heir to. When both took office, unemployment was around 7.5 percent. But Carter left the Gipper with inflation and interest rates raging out of control, both in high double digits. Productivity was dead, the economy in negative growth.
And yet, despite the sophist revisionism of the Obamanites, Reagan’s approval ratings stayed well above 50 percent all through his first year according to the CBS/NY Times polls of the era and by a wide margin, the citizenry saw Reagan’s efforts to wring inflation out of the economy as both necessary and needed for future growth. They didn’t always like Reagan’s polices: but they supported them.

Why?

My old friend Vic Gold, writer and historian, hit the nail on the head the other day. Obama, he said, has never sat in the Oval Office and looked into a camera and said, “My fellow Americans…” just as every president before him has, in the era of radio, film and television.
All of Obama’s pronouncements have been before a live audience or a press gaggle. Why? Because he needs the instant gratification of his elite audiences. Because he lacks the self-confidence of men such as Truman, JFK and RWR, all of whom said “this government” or “your government.” Obama says, “my administration” and “my cabinet.” He is a product of the Facebook generation, superb at self-promotion: less talented in other areas.

The differences between the 40th president and the 44th president become ever more pronounced when it becomes clear that Obama speaks mainly to the elites of Washington, New York and academia. Obama, the uber elitist, prefers the company of wealthy bankers and Washington's kommentariat.

It makes perfect sense. To him, they are his people.

Reagan, on the other hand, spoke “over the heads of Washington” to go to the American people. He preferred the company of farmer to financiers. He prefer the wise common sense of the citizenry to the wisenheimers of Washington.

The American people were his people.

Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley and Banister Public Affairs and is the author of two critically praised books on Reagan including "Reagan's Revolution" and the newly released "Rendezvous with Destiny," about the 1980 campaign.

Well it looks like Joe Wilson was right all along when he said to Obama, “You Lie”.
He just knew it before the President proved it. What am I talking about? Transparency and the promise of the President to broadcast the Health debate on CSpan. Not once, not twice, but eight times during the campaign the President stated on national TV that he was different and that something this big was going to be shown to the people of the US so we could see who was hiding what. Now that CSpan has called out the President on his promise what do we get from Obama? Silence. He has no intention to show you what is going on behind the closed doors. He does not care in the least that you caught him lying, so that begs the question, what is it that he is hiding in there. I must be bigger then being a proven liar.

And oh, by the way MR. Obama, YOU LIE !

Ok, I know, you all are going to jump on me because Obama is black, call me a raciest because I even mention the possibility. Well I hate to break the news to you; whites aren’t the only one’s who can be racists. I just want to ask a question, and you decide.

Remember earlier this year when Sergeant James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department, he was white, arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr, who was black? Within hours the president said “the Cambridge police . . . acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”
Now, let’s look at the terrorist attack at Fort Hood where the attacker was Muslim, Obama said, “Let’s not rush to judge”. Ok, how about the terrorist attack on Christmas day, where the attacker was a Muslim? It has now been three days without a word from our president.

So, why? Because he thinks whites are the only one’s who are raciest? Or is it because Obama is a closet Muslim lover and a white hater? I don’t know. What I do know is his actions and words are inconsistent depending on what race or faith you are. If he believes so much in equality, why does he treat people so differently?

You decide.

Big Olive
Editor, Martini Rambles

By Rev. Bill Shuler - FOXNews.com

Christmas compels us to remember what matters most in a world that too often forgets. The people and the places that are central to the Christmas narrative have a message that is as relevant today as it was that very first Christmas. The following are 10 reminders at Christmas time:

1. Mary reminds us that even though you may feel vulnerable and shut out, God has not abandoned you.
2. The stable is a reminder that God’s blessings are often hidden in unexpected places.
3. The wise men remind us that God is often found where others fail to look.
4. A manger reminds us that God’s touch brings dignity to the ordinary.
5. A crowded inn reminds us that God only enters where he is invited.
6. The shepherds remind us that the good news of the Christ child came first to the lowly.
7. Herod reminds us that no enemy of the truth will triumph.
8. Joseph reminds us that each act of obedience is vital to the success of God’s plans.
9. The angel, Gabriel, reminds us that nothing is impossible with God.
10. Bethlehem reminds us that Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled with the birth of Jesus. (Micah 5:2)

The world was forever changed when Jesus was born. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, “Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy the palace and Christ the cross, but one day that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the name of Caesar must be dated by his name.” On the day that Christ was born we were reminded that, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

WASHINGTON -- Two strange bedfellows have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate President Obama's right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, for his potential role in the near collapse of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The letter by Jane Hamsher, founder of the liberal Firedoglake Web site, and Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform Chief, was sent Wednesday, one day before the Treasury Department announced that it will lift the $400 billion financial cap on loans to the government-sponsored enterprises to make sure they stay afloat.

It also arrived just before the Federal Housing Financial Authority announced Thursday that it would place salary caps on 11 of the companies' top executives.

Since the financial bailout began, Fannie and Freddie have received $111 billion in taxpayer loans. In August, the administration projected the cost for rescuing Fannie and Freddie would total $170 billion.

Treasury Department officials said the cap will be replaced with a flexible formula to ensure the companies can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors.

"The amendments to these agreements announced today should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury's commitment to support these firms as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during the current crisis," the department said in a statement.

FHFA issued its own ruling Thursday that the base salary for officers besides the CEO, CFO and COO cannot exceed $500,000 a year. That means five officers are exempt and 11 will now face a cap.

The capped executives will be allowed to get up to one-third of their salary in additional incentive bonuses. Any deferred cash salary -- like stock salary received by private company executives who received bailouts -- will be paid partly as a means to keep executive officers working at the GSEs.

FHFA acting chief Edward DeMarco said the compensation deal is to mimic the one set up by pay czar Kenneth Feinberg for private companies.

"The enterprises must attract and retain the talent needed to accomplish (their) objectives. We have worked with the enterprises' boards and sought the guidance of the Special Master of TARP Executive Compensation, to develop competitive compensation packages that benefit from the structural standards created for the TARP-assisted firms," DeMarco said.

Eight of the then-top 11 executives at Fannie Mae left the company just before the U.S. government stepped in with its bailout, as did the four highest paid executives at Freddie
Mac.

Treasury officials will provide an updated estimate for Fannie and Freddie losses when President Obama sends his 2011 budget to Congress in February. The formula Treasury will use will provide the institutions with a sufficient cushion based on the losses they may incur over the next three years.

But Hamsher and Norquist want to know now whether the bailout was in part the result of corrupt practices by Emanuel while he was a board member at Freddie in 2000-2001.

They cited a Chicago Tribune story that described a plan by the executives and the board to use accounting tricks to show shareholders they were reaping massive profits even as they continued down a path of risky investments. The profits were then used to justify the executives' big bonuses. When Emanuel left the board to enter Congress in 2002, he was qualified for $380,000 in stock and options and $20,000 cash.

In their letter to Holder, Hamsher and Norquist added that the White House has stonewalled any inquiries into Emanuel's role on the board, noting that the acting inspector general was "stripped of his authority earlier this year by the Justice Department, relying on a loophole in a bill Mr. Emanuel cosponsored and pushed through Congress shortly before he left for the White House."

The White House has not appointed a new inspector general to determine whether crimes were committed by the board to defraud investors, the two noted, and the statute of limitations for empaneling a grand jury is about to run out.

"Under the influence of Rahm Emanuel, the White House is moving a trillion-dollar slush fund into corruption-riddled companies with no oversight in place. This will allow Fannie and Freddie to continue to purchase more toxic assets from banks, acting as a back-door increase of the TARP without congressional approval," Hamsher and Norquist wrote.

The two wrote they would like the Justice Department to "begin an investigation into the cause of Fannie and Freddie's conservatorship, into Rahm Emanuel's activities on the board of Freddie Mac (including any violations of his fiduciary duties to shareholders), into the decision-making behind the continued vacancy of Fannie and Freddie's inspector general post, and into potential public corruption by Rahm Emanuel in connection with his time in Congress, in the White House, and on the board of Freddie Mac."

Asked about the letter on Thursday, White House spokesman Bill Burton did not address the allegations, saying, "I have the feeling that Rahm's job is very safe."

By Bradley Blakeman
- FOXNews.com
The Obama administration seeks to empower a very powerful government agency you have probably never heard of with new and expanded powers that will have a direct consequence on every American if they are successful in their efforts to implement national health care reforms.

The Obama White House is also drunk with power and is seeking to expand the powers of government agencies to oversee and act out to affect Americans in ways that this country has never seen before.

What is the Office of Personnel and Management and why should you care?

The Office of Personnel Management, (OPM), is suppose to be an independent government agency that is charged with managing the civil service system of the federal government. If you are a federal employee then civil service laws, rules and regulations that are managed by OPM govern you. One of the main charges of OPM is to administer and oversee federal health care provided to all federal employees.

The Director of OPM is appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. The current director of OPM is a fellow by the name of John Berry who, before becoming OPM director this past year, was director of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. -- You cannot make this stuff up.

Under the Democrats' national health care scheme not only would OPM be charged with overseeing and administering federal employees health care but they will have the added charge of administering civilian federal health care as well. What does that mean? Basically, that Americans will be treated as “civil servants.” Are you starting to see the danger?

The more government seeks to control our lives the more Orwellian it gets. This “big brother” mentality that "government knows best" and that it is their mission to provide cradle to grave “care” of its citizens will doom America as we know it. Under such a system the individual becomes meaningless and the state becomes the entity upon which we are all forced to rely.

Most recently OPM made news when the Obama administration sought to use it as a tool upon which to consolidate power.

Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants.

It is not uncommon for some presidential political appointees to have the opportunity to become civil servants within the federal bureaucracy when they meet all the criteria for a federal civil service job.-- Ordinarily, a political appointee serves "at the pleasure of the president" who originally appointed that person to a particular position. When the president’s term is up their job is up as well. But, when a political appointee becomes a civil servant they are considered full- time government employees and are subject to the rules and regulations governing all other federal employees. Civil service jobs are seen a non-political jobs and are not based on appointment. They are based on merit. Their employment continues until they retire, quit, or are removed from their position for cause. It should never be permissible to remove a civil servant based solely on their political affiliation.

The Obama administration has now ordered a purging of Republicans from federal government civil service.

The Office of Federal Personnel Management, (OPM), has become the “henchman” of the Obama administration. Following orders they have issued new rules -- going back five years --wherein every employee hired, who previously had been a political appointee, will be terminated regardless of cause or poor performance.

It is clear what the intent of the Obama administration is by looking at the following statement made by John Berry the Director of OPM:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision-making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

The memorandum specifically applies this change to all political appointees hired in the past 5 years and effectively works to freeze them out of their current jobs or make their lives so miserable by denying promotions, that they will quit before they are forced out.

It is outrageous that the Obama administration would politicize what is supposed to be a independent government agency and would become so vindictive and cold in their exercise of raw political power that they would take steps to eliminate people from their legitimate government employment, based solely on their political pedigree and not their job performance.

I served in the White House during the presidency of George W. Bush. When he took office, we knew that a fair amount of Clinton appointees were making the transition from political appointment positions to civil service positions and nothing was done to “root them out”. They were entitled to remain in their positions and were held to the same standard of job performance as any other civil service employee.

There is nothing worse than abuse of government power. It erodes the very fabric of our laws and respect for government institutions.

For an incoming administration to make a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and to attempt to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers” is something you might have expected in the former Soviet Union or from the KGB. But it's not something we expected to see in the United States led by the White House.

The expanded “portfolio” of OPM should worry all Americans. This little known agency will make the IRS look down right friendly if the Obama administration is successful in expanding their duties, powers and responsibilities.

The United States is counting on cows to help save the planet.

U.S. Secretary Tom Vilsack announced an agreement with the American dairy industry Tuesday to reduce the industry's greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020, mostly by convincing farmers to capture the methane from cow manure that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere.

"This historic agreement, the first of its kind, will help us achieve the ambitious goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions while benefiting farmers," Vilsack said at the U.N. climate talks. "(The) use of manure of technology is a win for everyone."

Agriculture accounts for about 7 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The plan calls for persuading more American farmers to purchase an anaerobic digester, which essentially converts cow manure into electricity. The problem is that, so far, only 2 percent of U.S. dairy farmers are using the technology, mostly because it is too costly for family farmers.

There are more than 60,000 dairy farms with about 9 million dairy cows in the United States, but 77 percent of the farms have fewer than 100 cows, according to Dairy Farming Today, an industry group. Farms that would be interested in this technology would likely have more than 100 cows.

Thomas Gallagher, the chief executive officer of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy and Dairy Management Inc., which signed the agreement with the government, said the commitment shows that U.S. farmers are concerned with making their operations increasingly sustainable.

"This memorandum came about because of the commitment of U.S. dairy farmers and the dairy industry to a sustainable future," Gallagher said. "Sustainability goes hand-in-hand with our heritage of taking care of the land and natural resources while producing nutritious products that consumers want."

Vilsack acknowledged that farmers, who would be exempt from capping their emissions under current climate legislation, would be motivated to take part by selling offsets or emission credits on voluntary carbon markets, or eventually in a government cap and trade system.

Fred Yoder, a farmer from Ohio who is the former chairman of the National Corn Growers, acknowledged that money will be a driving force in farmers participation. But he said farmers also realize they can no longer ignore greenhouse gas emissions.

"Before, they didn't see the necessity and now farmers are finally starting to think the train has left the station on mitigating the greenhouse gases so how do we wrap our hands around it and get ready for it," he said

The Times, December 15, 2009

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”


However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

London Times

More than 1,700 scientists in Britain agree to sign a statement defending the "integrity and honesty" of global warming research, but at least one alleges he felt pressured to do so.

Britain's Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furor over leaked e-mails, referred to as "Climate-gate."

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change." They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support "for a simple statement that we ... have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming."

Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, from which the e-mails were hacked. Phil Jones, unit director, has agreed to stand down while an investigation takes place into claims that he manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend and tried to block publication of alternative views.

One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. "The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you," she said.

Continue reading at The Times of London

If you want to take the time to understand global warming, or give a shit about what Al Gore want's to stick up your ass, read this..

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Kevin Jennings' GLSEN Passed Out Gay Hook-Up Bar Directories to Teens

Clearly, Kevin Jennings' GLSEN did/does not follow policies that safeguard children. There seems to be a pattern here.

At GLSEN conferences in Atlanta (1999), Chicago (2000), and Boston (2005), teenage attendees were able to pick up directories to gay "leather" bars (where homosexuals meet for anonymous sex and sadomasochistic "play").

In 2005, GLSEN recommended the infamous "Ramrod" bar in Boston in the Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, handed out to teens at their Boston conference. (The booklet described the Ramrod: "oldschool speakeasy. Leather, denim. Woof.")

Leather Bar: a bar frequented by gays, often sadomasochists, dressed typically in leather garments

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth told WorldNetDaily that dozens of teenagers were among the 800 attending the 2000 GLSEN conference in Chicago:

Although conference presenters talked about the importance of disseminating only "age-appropriate" material, all participants, including dozens of high school-aged kids, had the opportunity to receive a "Visitor's Companion" that advertised Chicago's homosexual "leather" bars, a sex club and a homosexual bathhouse called "Steamworks," which was advertised as a "24-hour men's gym/sauna."

LaBarbera questioned why GLSEN's organizers -- already bruising over the recent arrest of a Chicago GLSEN leader for soliciting sex with an underage boy (GLSEN expelled the man) -- did not take the "simple step of keeping these gay sex club ads from reaching the teenagers in their care."

"For years, GLSEN has claimed to protect 'at-risk' kids. But they are now helping put young teenage boys at risk by uncritically passing out a gay guide that hawks anonymous sex clubs and 'leather' bars in Chicago," he said. "This fits into a pattern of GLSEN failing to shield its young followers from a homosexual male sexual culture that not only tolerates, but often celebrates promiscuity." (At last year's GLSEN conference in Atlanta, a similar sexually-laden booklet was passed out to attendees.)

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.

According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.

Joe Mendelson, Global Warming Policy Director for National Wildlife Federation, said the endangerment decision, would happen at "absolutely the right time."

"With House legislation passed, a bipartisan Senate bill in the works, and strong EPA action a virtual certainty, the president goes to Copenhagen with a very strong hand to play," Mr. Mendelson said.

The EPA declaration would also ratchet up the pressure on U.S. lawmakers to pass legislation that analysts say would cut emissions in a more economically efficient way. Although the House has passed a climate bill, movement of similar legislation in the Senate has faced much more resistance and passage becomes more difficult in an election year.

The EPA's Ms. Jackson and President Obama's energy and climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law.

Industry experts say the Clean Air Act--under which the EPA is making its endangerment finding--was designed to regulate more regional and localized air pollution, and would be a much more blunt tool than Congress could craft. Critics, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the endangerment declaration could spark a cascade of litigation and regulation that could harm the economy.

The EPA, meanwhile, says it would regulate in a sensible way. The agency has already moved forward on two rules that would guide regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily through a proposal to set the threshold level at 25,000 tons a year and requiring such large emitters to report their emissions.

If the EPA decided to move ahead with emission regulations for stationary sources such as utilities, new rules would likely be in place by 2012 and could set stringent emission standards to require firms to install the best available technology.

Two people close to the matter who met with White House officials earlier this week said one change between the proposed endangerment finding issued earlier this year and the final announcement expected next week is the inclusion of the potential cost to society of no emission regulations.