In the wake of last year’s “endangerment finding,” the EPA now has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. But the Clean Air Act was designed to address specific pollutants, and its sweeping one-size-fits-all regulation was not meant to address carbon dioxide.

To prevent a major power grab by unelected government bureaucrats, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced a resolution of disapproval to keep the EPA from moving forward on its own while Congress continues to debate the issue.

The resolution by Murkowski makes a lot of sense, especially as the nation struggles to boost economic growth and create new jobs. The economic effects of new EPA regulations could be devastating, slowing the economy and sending more jobs overseas.

Supporting the Murkowski Resolution sends a clear message that any attempt by the EPA to massively increase regulation and drive up costs for consumers and small businesses will not stand.

Brendan Steinhauser

Director, Federal and State Campaigns FreedomWorks

Obama drone mentality

Re: “Palin exposes Tea Partiers’ true colors,” Feb. 14

Columnist Steve Chapman reveals his undying support for President Obama and liberal philosophy by attacking Sarah Palin for her urging small government controls in economic affairs and very strong powers in national defense. He then admits his lack of understanding that Mrs. Palin is simply advocating compliance with our Constitution in which the primary role of our government is our defense and not economic socialist agendas of the Obama administration. There is no contradiction in what she and the Tea Party movement urge.

As for reading Miranda rights to the underpants bomber, she again is correct because it was not necessary as the evidence of his act was already presented for prosecution purposes without the need to obtain further oral self-incrimination. Once the Miranda rights were read, he stopped talking about his accomplices and their locations, activities and future attacks. He should have been interviewed by military or CIA intelligence agents to obtain timely information for immediate action. The fact that he is now talking over a week later results in useless old intelligence and probably because of deals made with the prosecution. Mr. Chapman is confused as to who is trading liberty for safety. It is President Obama and not Sarah Palin.

Steven Chucala

Woodbridge

Palin is qualified to be president, Obama is not

Re: “Palin exposes Tea Partiers’ true colors.” Feb. 14

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll claims that 71 percent of Americans do not think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.

I wonder how many of those 71 percent gave any thought to that question before a pollster asked it. The reaction might well be, “Well, now that you ask me …” The interviewee may then give back to The Washington Post and ABC what those vast organs of the media have been strenuously pushing the last year and a half.

Suppose that those same media had been peddling the notion — which would be well-supported — that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. For example, that newspaper and that broadcasting company could be playing up to the sky President Obama’s nonsensical statement that the terrorist would be given a fair trial and then convicted and executed. It doesn’t take a person wiser than a high school civics student to know that you don’t pronounce verdict and sentence in advance of trial. That one bit of presidential Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense is disqualifying in itself.

Perhaps if our self-appointed educators had turned their teaching and polling powers to President Obama in the same manner as they tarred and feathered Sarah Palin, respondents might well say, in equal numbers, “Now that you ask, no, Obama is unqualified to be president.”

Nathan Dodell

Rockville, Md.