More Corruption? Recordings reveal Obama officials pressured contractors to change job loss figures

By  via Washington Free Beacon

U.S. Dept of Interior, Office of Surface Minin...Obama administration officials may have pressured government contractors to change job loss estimates associated with coal regulations, audio recordings reveal.

 

The tapes show that unnamed officials with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) asked government contractors to change their calculations of job losses associated with the Stream Protection Rule.

A preliminary draft of an environmental impact statement estimated that up to 7,000 coalminers could lose their jobs under the administration’s “preferred” regulation. After a leaked copy of the report went public, officials asked the contractors to compare job estimates to a model in which another regulation was enforced, rather than the real world numbers.

“It’s not the real world, this is rulemaking,” an OSM official tells a skeptical contractor on the recording.

“If we’re to assume [the 2008 rule] is enforced in the coal-producing states, this is a very small [impact],” the contractor replies. “But that, as you said, is not the real world, that’s pretending … I thought we were looking at what’s going to change in Kentucky, what’s going to change in Pennsylvania, what’s going to change in Ohio, what’s going to change in Wyoming.”

When a second OSM official makes light of the “theoretical discussion,” the contractor shoots back that “his [the OSM official’s proposed criteria] was theoretical, mine was practical.”

The agency fired the contractors studying the rule less than one month later.

The House Natural Resources Committee obtained the tapes from an unidentified third party after OSM provided heavily redacted transcripts—the exchange above, for example, was blacked out—and withheld the audio recordings.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R., Ohio) blasted the administration’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation.

“The tapes validated many of our concerns that the administration went into this with an intent of devastating the coal industry, fully knowing that the provisions in the proposed rule would put 7,000 jobs at risk,” he said. “And they wanted to get away with it by playing pretend.”

The committee has served OSM with two subpoenas since the beginning of the year. Department officials denied any wrongdoing and accused the committee of launching a political witch-hunt.

“The documents reflect the fact that there is a lot of analysis, discussion, and input that’s needed if we’re going to have a balanced rule that continues to support the development of important domestic resources,” Department of the Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher said. “We look forward to the Committee’s input on the substantive issues at any time, including once a rule is proposed, but the Committee’s cherry-picking of the documents to manufacture a false narrative shows again that their investigation is about politics, not good policymaking.”

Contractors and officials acknowledged in the closed-door meetings that rewriting the rule would be “atomic” for small businesses and start-up coal operations and worried aloud that spending $200 million per year to protect only 15 miles of stream in high unemployment regions such as Appalachia would be a hard “sell.”

Since 1983, mining companies have conducted operations while maintaining a 100-foot barrier between their activities and streams.

The rule, known originally as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, was never codified and has been loosely enforced. George W. Bush signed an official Stream Buffer Zone rule in 2008 that maintained the 100-foot restriction, but also included more exemptions for mining companies to conduct operations within the barrier.

When Obama came into office, he ordered OSM to rewrite the rule to please his environmentalist base. OSM has spent more than $5 million studying the impacts of sediment run off and water protection and hopes to release an official rule proposal later this year.

Former contractors who studied the rule told the Washington Free Beacon that such a calculation would have made job losses seem smaller, but also denied that OSM acted inappropriately.

The committee released the tapes on Friday. OSM officials have until May 24 to respond to a second subpoena from the committee. Johnson pledged to continue pushing for transparency at the agency.

“We’re going to keep marching down this path,” he said. “We’re not going to stop until we get a full accounting of why the administration has chosen to rewrite this rule and why they are going about it in a speedy, haphazard way.”

Fetcher said that OSM has fully cooperated with the committee, providing it with more than 13,000 pages of documents detailing the history of the rule.

He did not respond to an email asking if the department would release the recordings before the deadline, however.

For more information click here.

Obama Bogged Down by Scandals

By Phyllis Schlafly via Eagle Forum

Increasing public disapproval of Barack Obama is based not only on his extravagant spending that hangs debt like an albatross around the necks of our children and grandchildren.  He is presiding over the most scandal-ridden administration in decades, from Colombia to Las Vegas, to the Mexican border, to Solyndra, and more.

The Secret Service’s prostitution party in Colombia is an international embarrassment.  It’s not sufficient punishment that a few guilty men have been allowed to resign or retire with benefits because many questions are still crying to be answered.

Who arranged the party at the now-notorious Pley Club Cartagena, which apparently supplied enough girls for eleven Secret Service and ten U.S. military men staying in separate rooms at the historic Hotel Caribe, where prostitution is openly tolerated?

Is there any connection between this moral scandal and our recent trade agreement with Colombia?  Were there any similar parties to con the United States into going along with this free-trade deal favorable to Colombia?

Another embarrassing scandal is the General Services Administration’s $823,000 junket to Las Vegas.  Obama Administration bureaucrats apparently think parties are perks that go along with their jobs.

Living high on the hog, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been charging the Pentagon $32,000 per flight to jet to California every few weeks.  And don’t forget the half-billion-dollar gift to Solyndra before it took bankruptcy and left U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

“Fast and Furious” turned out to be a bloody scandal after the U.S. Justice Department okayed the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, under the ridiculous excuse that this would give us the opportunity to get more information about the drug dealers.  Somebody should be held accountable for the fact that one of these U.S. guns was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Operation Fast and Furious allowed over 2,000 weapons to be smuggled to the violent Mexican drug cartels.  A new book by investigative journalist Katie Pavlich, called “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-up,” asserts that a third gun was involved whose existence was covered up by the FBI and the Justice Department.

Another scandal is that the Obama Administration is suing several states.  We need more aggressive Tenth Amendment advocates to publicize and overturn these travesties.

Obama is suing Arizona to try to knock out its law to protect its citizens against illegal aliens, a law that polls show Americans support by two-to-one.  The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week.

The Arizona law allows local law enforcement to question the legal status of anyone who is stopped on suspicion of a crime, and then detain anyone who cannot prove legal U.S. residency.  Illegal immigration is already a federal crime, and the Arizona law is an attempt to do some enforcement that the feds are failing to do.

The Obama Administration wants the courts to prevent the states from enforcing laws that Obama refuses to enforce.  Similar lawsuits have been filed against Alabama, Georgia, and Utah.

In the Supreme Court case against Arizona, nine states have filed amicusbriefs supporting Arizona, including Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.  They say they “have a manifest interest in ensuring that their sovereignty is accorded proper respect,” and that each state should be able to decide for itself how to protect its citizens from the crime and costs associated with illegal aliens.

Amicusbriefs from foreign governments opposing the Alabama and Georgia laws were filed by Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El  Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru.  We need federal and state laws to prevent our courts from considering foreign laws, treaties, court decisions, or briefs in interpreting U.S. laws.

It looks like voter fraud is one of the ways that Barack Obama plans to be reelected in November.  He has had his Justice Department block Texas and South Carolina laws that require showing a photo ID in order to vote, even though polls report that 70 percent of Americans support voter ID.

In defending Texas’s law, Governor Rick Perry said it “requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane.”  At least eight states have passed similar laws, and even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s 2004 ballot initiative requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote.

The Constitution makes it a major duty of the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Despite the fact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the law of the land, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, Obama is instead ordering his Justice Department not to defend this law in court.

Further reading:

For more information click here.

Three Reasons You Shouldn’t Vote For Obama

By via Western Journalism

1.   This administration’s sense of entitlement:

Obama has played over 100 rounds of golf since becoming president.  He has taken or sent his family on more vacations than we can count.  He has no concern about the fact that he does this on the taxpayer’s tab.

The General Services Administration threw a $823,000 party in Las Vegas. It is as if the ‘gods of the marketplace’ believe they deserve these extravagant parties, as if they are perks that go along with the job.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta charges the American tax payer $32,000 weekly as he jets to California for the weekend.

This administration approved a ½ billion dollar gift to Solyndra before it went bankrupt.  When Solyndra went bankrupt the cost was passed on to the American taxpayer.

2.  This administration’s belief that they are above the law:

The U.S. Justice Department approved the sale of guns to the Mexican drug cartels knowing these guns would be used against innocent people.  Obama has no conscience regarding the sanctity of life.  He once said he would rather murder the unborn child of his daughter than punish her with a baby.

The president, who promised to unify us and bring us together,  is suing the state of Arizona opposing the laws the residents of that great state approved that were designed to protect its innocent citizens from illegal immigrants who might have criminal intent.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime.  This president sends a message that some crime is acceptable and he gets to decide which ones!

Obama is attempting to strong-arm the Supreme Court to support a most unconstitutional measure in Obamacare that would force Americans to purchase something against their will.

3.  This administration’s aura of dishonesty

If the president has nothing to hide, why spend $2 million to cover up his past.  Where are the papers he wrote in college?  Where are his grades from Harvard?  Where are all the classmates or girlfriends who should be lining up for their 15 minutes of fame because they took a class with Obama?

Obama said he was the one to unify us but when have we been more polarized.  He is quick to stir up racial tension when given an opportunity.  He promotes class welfare.  I know, the press wants us to think he has an I.Q. of over 200.  Does it not seem he was lacking in judgment and wisdom when he made a judgment about his professor friend at Harvard before the facts were in and had to hold a beer summit to fix his blunder.  I don’t really see the resemblance of the president with Trayvon Martin.  Obama again became involved in an issue before the facts were in.

Why so much controversy about his birth certificate?  If there wasn’t something to hide, would this president not have cleared that up long ago?  I don’t want proof that Barack Obama, Sr. is his father. I want proof that Frank Marshall Davis was NOT his real father.

I’m tired of being told what to believe when the opposite is usually true.  Michelle Obama recently attempted to reinforce the messianic traits of her husband.  She boldly declared that he has “brought us out of the darkness and into the light.”  Uh, no, Michelle, that would be Jesus, not Barack!

Memo to Michelle:  He ain’t the Messiah and this ain’t the light!

For more click here.

 

Girlfriends, Let’s Talk About How to Convert a Democrat

By Janine Turner via PJ Media

Think movie scene: a restaurant anywhere in America. A group of five female friends are sitting around talking — three are Democrats, two are Republicans. At a table with no salt shaker and a Michelle Obama-approved menu, the Democrats’ conversation starts like this:

Can you believe the Republicans are taking away our contraception?

This dialogue quickly deteriorates into a misinformed, Obama-fueled fiasco: the wicked “one percent,” the “fairness” of free health care, equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities, etc.

The Republican women look at each other with an unspoken, secret “OMG,” yet they do what conservatives do best: remain conservative. As the Democrat women ramble on about the inequality and wickedness of America — taking no heed that anyone else at the table could possibly disagree with them — the conservative women remain silent.

They do not enter the fray because they know the risks. They know that the Democrats, not able to defend their wiles with wisdom, will attack the Republican women’s character. They know that Democrats cannot have a reasonable conversation, and a brouhaha will ensue.

The Republican women, who feel intimidated, remain mute. They believe their inner fortitude is enough. But is it? No, it is not. The stakes are too high. The republic is vulnerable, our children’s futures in jeopardy.

It is now crucial for conservatives to roll up their sleeves and to join the debate. Isolating into the haven of friends who are of the same mind at home, in church, and even on talk radio is no longer an option. Preaching to the choir will not win our country back in 2012.

It’s time for Republicans to pronounce: Women are smarter than this.

How does one convert unyielding and uninformed liberals? With reason and knowledge. To enter into this battle, one must be armed, agile, sharp, and resolute.

Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.

G: Get Reasonable. Want to teach your children that laws don’t matter? Be a Democrat.

I: Informed on Phony Contraception Battle. Want your children to lose their religious freedom? Be a Democrat.

  • Republicans are not interested in taking away contraceptives.
  • The Republicans are protecting your religious freedom.
  • A dangerous precedent has been set — the government has successfully mandated that the Catholic Church go against their beliefs and cover contraceptives in their insurance policies.
  • What’s next? Mandating which religion you must follow?

            R: Republicans Are the Women’s Party. Want your daughter to be constrained by government? Be a Democrat.

  • Republicans supported the 19th Amendment, extending voting rights to America’s women. Democrats didn’t.
  • A Republican, Senator A. A. Sargent, introduced the 19th Amendment.
  • A Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress denied women their right to vote by refusing to pass the 19th Amendment. Four times.
  • A Republican-controlled U.S. Congress finally passed the 19th Amendment.
  • During the ratification process, eight of the nine states that did not ratify the amendment had Democrat-controlled state legislatures.

L: Legislative Liberty Is Lost. Want your child to live under tyranny? Be a Democrat.

  • The Democrats are bureaucrats. They are really the Bureaucratic Party.
  • Democrats do not think the people can govern, provide, or think on their own.
  • Democrats override the legislative process with unelected bureaucrats and “czars.”
  • Obama has appointed the most czars in U.S. history.
  • Democrats write 2,700-page bills that no one, not even the Supreme Court justices, can understand. That should stop.

F: Fuel and Energy Policies Are a Farce. Want your child’s transportation to be a horse? Be a Democrat.

  • The basic ability to fuel our cars and to receive consistent electricity is in jeopardy under Obama and the Democrats.
  • Obama refuses to harvest America’s great wealth of fossil fuel resources.
  • Drilling on federal lands is at an eight-year low.
  • We have enough oil, gas, and coal in our country to be self-sufficient.
  • The taxes paid to the government from these resources could pay off our debt within a generation.
  • Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stated that his goal is $8.00 per gallon gasoline that would pressure Americans to “go green.”
  • Would you let your kid drive the combustible Chevy Volt?
  • We should not put the cart before the horse, but with the Obama administration, you should get a horse.

R: Return Women to the Workforce. Want your daughter to live off the government? Be a Democrat.

 

  • Of all the jobs that have been lost during the Obama administration, 92% have been women’s jobs.
  • Women are suffering under the Obama administration.
  • The majority of single mothers are trapped in the mire of dependence on the government because the Obama economy has had the hardest impact on women.
  • Democrats depend on dependents.

I: Insolvency — Sinking in a Sea of Debt. Want your child to live in debt, hounded by creditors? Be a Democrat.

  • The Republicans are offering life vests.
  • The Democrats are drowning Americans in ideology.
  • America is broke. We are approaching 16 trillion dollars in debt.
  • We are beholden to foreign countries.
  • Our country could be taken over without a shot being fired.
  • Our credit rating has been downgraded twice under the Obama administration; this has never before happened even once: Standard and Poor’s did this in August 2011; Egan-Jones downgraded us in April 2012.
  • Democrats have not put forth a budget in 1,100 days. Republicans have.

E: Entitlement Society — “Give me Liberty and Gimme, Gimme!” Want your child to be dependent on other people’s money? Be a Democrat.

  • Patrick Henry, one of our great Founding Fathers, said: “Give me liberty or give me death!”
  • Now, Americans say: “Give me liberty and gimme, gimme.
  • Our children are being taught that the government owes them everything.
  • The Democrats want Americans to believe that everything is free.
  • Nothing is for free. The sacrifice is our personal freedom, skyrocketing debt, and our Republican form of government. Our voice.
  • Taxation will not and cannot curb the debt and deficit, which continually regenerates and escalates. Cutting the budget is a necessity.

N: National Security — We Are Vulnerable. Want to teach your child it’s okay to be bullied? Be a Democrat.

  • Debt is the biggest threat to our national security.
  • We are being bullied by foreign countries.
  • The entitlement programs and tax code must be restructured.
  • Obama and the Democrats are doing nothing. Nothing. They only propagandize.
  • Denial destroys. Refusing to acknowledge and take action to control and cut our debt and deficit is our biggest vulnerability.
  • China is invading our country through cyberspace, political correctness, and economic and military naiveté.

D: Darkness — Democrats Want Us to Be in the Dark. Want your child to sit in the dark? Be a Democrat.

  • We did not blow out our candles until we had electricity strung in our homes.
  • Obama is punishing and restricting our current American energy industry through the EPA in ways that are not feasible and not constitutional.
  • Government fails when it mandates the market. See Solyndra.
  • Our electricity is being compromised before alternatives are viable and accessible.
  • Obama and the Democrats want us to be awash in windmills.
  • What happens if the wind doesn’t blow?

S: Sick — Our Health Care Will Soon Be Hopeless. Want your child to be sick for a year? Be a Democrat.

  • ObamaCare ends the superiority of our health care.
  • Need an MRI? You will have to wait in line for it, and you may die while waiting.
  • Does your child need surgery? You may wait six months to a year.
  • Your parent is elderly and needs a knee replacement? A government panel will decide if his or her life is worth the expense.
  • Two years after ObamaCare was passed, no branch of government can decipher the 2,700-page bill.

So, men and women, get out and talk with your GIRLFRIENDS. We can convert Democrats to Reason — the Republican Party. But we have to enter the fray to do it.

We are smarter than the propaganda we are being sold. Times are serious. To win in 2012, we must be vocal.

For more information click here.

War on Terror Declared Over; Environmental Justice War Now Begins

By Bob Beauprez via Townhall

An official for the State Department made it official, “The War on Terror is over.”  

It would seem that Barack Obama would have wanted to make the rather significant announcement himself, but instead the proclamation was made by an unnamed State Department official to Michael Hirsch of the National Journal.

Whew!  That’s good news for sure. 

I wonder if the Obama Administration also sent a memo to the 50 Foreign Terrorist Organizations identified by the State Department that the clock has run out – the game is over – take your suicide bomber vest and go home?  

We’ve all come to know their names:  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Palestinian Islamic Jihad , Al-Shabaab, etc. 

Now that the War on Terror has come to an end, look for an announcement that the Department of Homeland Security will be eliminated.  DHS should no longer be necessary since fighting the War on Terror was the stated reason for creating the new agency in the first place. 

In defining the Mission for DHS, Sec. 101 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 says “The primary mission of the Department is to…prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.”  The short mission statement uses the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” six times. (See below)

No more War on Terror, no more DHS, no more Janet Napolitano…would that also mean we could go back to the good old days of airport security when we could keep most of our clothes on before boarding a plane? 

One can hope, but don’t hold your breath.

As reported on these pages yesterday, DHS has moved on to a new mission – Environmental Justice – no kidding!  That is yet another fascinating pivot in the land of Hope-and-Change from protecting Americans from terrorists who want to kill us, to protecting ferns, mice, and insects from….well, us.  

Homeland Security Act of 2002

SEC. 101. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; MISSION.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of  title 5, United States Code. (b) MISSION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The primary mission of the Department is to— (A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; (C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States;

(D) carry out all functions of entities transferred to the Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and  emergency planning;

(E) ensure that the functions of the agencies and sub- divisions within the Department that are not related directly to securing the homeland are not  diminished or neglected except by a specific explicit Act of Congress;

(F) ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland;  and

(G) monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and otherwise contribute to  efforts to interdict illegal drug trafficking.

(2) RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING TERRORISM.—Except as specifically provided by law with respect to entities  transferred to the Department under this Act, pri- mary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism shall be vested not in the  Department,  but rather in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the acts in question.

For more information click here.

Bob Beauprez

Bob Beauprez

Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker. He and his wife Claudia reside in Lafayette, Colorado. You may contact him at:  http://bobbeauprez.com/contact/

Lie, Cheat, Steal: Save the Planet!

By John Ransom via Townhall

Speaking of lies and the liars that spread them: In light of yesterday’s column on the cottage industry of global warming hysteria and the slant they give the day’s news, I got a nice email from the people at the Heartland Institute reminding me of the theft and alteration of documents from Heartland by hysterical warming apologist Professor Peter Gleick, a supposed ethics expert with the Pacific Institute.

I first covered the story as it was occuring in February, when Heartland reported the theft. Sinced then Heartland has published a list of websites and periodicals that abetted Gleick. I have have appended that list at the end of this column.

Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, admitted that he recently stole some documents- and he may have forged others- from the conservative think-tank. But that’s all in a day’s work for a work-a-day climate warrior. The important thing isn’t the quest for the truth in global climate research, but, as Charlie Sheen would say, winning. With winning comes cash.

Because for some time it’s been clear, that in the climate debate, instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile, all the attention will be on the winners and losers. And some losers in the debate are much bigger than others.

For example:

“In the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts,” writes MSNBC, “scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society’s ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.”

No word yet whether Gleick will create an award for forgery. I hear the pool of candidates isn’t deep this year since all of the forged data from Climategate has already gone pro.

The authentic documents stolen from Heartland were released by Gleick, along with some documents the Heartland folks say are forgeries.

The real documents were prepared by the think-tank to counter the global warming bunk that is being taught in US schools.

I know about the global warming hysteria that is taught at the elementary and secondary level, because my kids come home everyday and instead of telling me about how they’ve learned to read and write and how great George Washington was, they instead tell me that “transfer calculations indicate that strong gradients in both ozone and water vapor near the tropopause contribute to the inversion.” Ah, huh. I think neither they, nor their teachers, nor the authors, nor myself, knows what that means.

Still I hope the question is on the ACT. But I doubt it.

This is a very serious issue.

How serious?

“Heartland has not said whether any of the documents it unwittingly released were altered,” reports the LA Times, “and Gleick said he did not change any of the material he got. But several of the key points the purported strategy document makes are backed up in the material Gleick obtained from Heartland. Most notably, in a fundraising document, Heartland identifies one of its priorities as reshaping the discussion of climate change in K-12 classrooms.” Ohmygosh!

Well let’s just say that the Heartland Institute is in BIG trouble now.

How dare these right-wing troglodytes have a scientific position contrary to the United Nations Interplanetary Council on Wealth Transfer and Class Envy.

No, no. no. You can’t do that. Not under an Obama administration.

Yeah sure: The UN misspends our money on their sex scandals, mismanagement of programs designed to secure peace and prosperity and engage in habitual human rights abuses by a majority of the members states who make up the one-world-government to-be. But clearly, those problems aside, they have the skill to put together a group of scientists who can report objectively on the science behind global warming; especially the part where the remedies include:

1) You footing the bill; and

2) They get your money.

Don’t we mere mortals know that our puny powers of reason and deduction are impervious to the powers granted to the Society of Ethical Geophysicists by the government of the United Nations?

That’s why the scientist, Geophysicist Ethicist Mr. Gleick, is now being hailed by the director of research for Greenpeace, Kert Davies, as a “hero,” says the LA Times.

Most other commentary declaims Gleick’s methods, while not-so subtly applauding his aims.

The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has had about the only rational response, concluding that Gleick is crazy:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.  I would probably have thrown that memo away.  I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what?  That Heartland exists?  That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible?

When conservatives question global warming, we are lying, apparently. When liberals steal in the name of global warming, it can’t be a sign of desperation, poor science or character. No; they must be crazy, with due respect to Ms. McArdle, who I believe is sincere .

I guess since liberals haven’t yet embraced retroactive abortions, the next, best thing they can do is label someone crazy when they want to cut them from the herd, as they did recently with Media Matter’s David Brock.

Skeptics- or rather, deniers, as we’d much rather be called- will point out that increasingly the public is distrustful of global warming science.

Despite a little bounce in the polls, 60 percent of US respondents to a Rasmussen survey don’t think that global warming is man made. “In a January survey of the top 22 policy priorities for the US,” writes Our World 2.0 “the public ranked climate change dead last, according to the Pew Research Center.”

“When government muzzles scientists for political reasons, it cuts at the fundamental principals of good science,” Stephen Hwang, professor of general internal medicine at the University of Toronto told Our World.

But when the doctors and scientists seek to muzzle the rest of us it’s all A.O.K.

And for some weird reason the public just doesn’t trust those scientists who are fully sponsored and funded by the UN, US, UK and other government grants, which in turn were funded by you.

By talking about it, you troglodytes just emit more carbon. Good going.

Your proper role is to just shut your big, fat mouth and fork over a carbon credit or cash equivalent so the truth-seeking can continue unimpeded.

For more information you can see the Heartland’s website on the scandal at Fakegate.org.

In the meantime, here’s a list of publications that Heartland says is a rogue’s gallery of organizations that are willing to invade people’s privacy in pursuit of an ideological campaign called “global warming.”

Please contact them – by commenting on the posts, emailing the bloggers or webmasters, even picking up the phone or writing a letter – to insist that they (1) remove those documents from their sites; (2) remove from their sites all posts that refer or relate in any manner to those documents; (3) remove from their Web sites any and all quotations from those documents; (4) publish retractions on their Web sites of prior postings; and (5) remove all such documents from their servers.

For more information click here.

John Ransom

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

Conservatives Hate Science (Fiction)

Kasey Jachim:

“It is often argued that Conservatives and Libertarians do not believe in science since we overwhelmingly reject the theory of Global Warming.” Funny, so do many of the scientists who were duped into falsifying data to support the liberal agenda. We Conservatives rely on REAL facts, science and data – not the liberal lies initiated to take control of what we buy, use, and eat!

Originally posted on The Last Civil Right:

 by: Takia Hollowell (Originally posted at www.kiradavis.net)

It is often argued that Conservatives and Libertarians do not believe in science since we overwhelmingly reject the theory of Global Warming.  Progressives and Democrats have labeled the right as “Deniers” and have even extended the vitriolic rhetoric by equating them with Holocaust Deniers as well.  Of course this does nothing but make Conservatives out to be the bogeyman and obfuscate the fact that man-made Global Warming is one big tyrannical redistribution hoax.

According to Al Gore and friends, the level of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere causes a trapping of the suns’ heat; thus warming up the planet (i.e. Greenhouse effect).  The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that coal burning plants are the number one contributor to the problem as they produce 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  The second biggest contributor would be automobiles as they…

View original 1,051 more words

“If I Wanted America to Fail”…..I would continue on the path we are on!

This excellent and insightful video explains, in detail, steps required to ‘fundamentally transform America’ and set us up for failure – steps the current Obama regime have been initiating and implementing for the last three years!  Free market is failing, our housing market is failing, jobs are failing, the economy is failing, education is failing, energy independence is failing, and soon our new heavily taxed health care program will fail.  If America fails, the world will soon follow!  Please watch and please share!

Other related articles

The tab for U.N.’s Rio summit: Trillions per year in taxes, transfers and price hikes

By  via Fox News

The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development will consider  a breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement, according to stunning U.N. documents examined  by Fox News.

The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled to be held in Brazil from June 20-23, and which Obama Administration officials have supported,  is to make dramatic and enormously expensive changes  in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

Among the proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” according to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

–More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ”  “climate adaptation” and other “green economy” measures.

–New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.

–Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, ‘brown’ technologies and newer, greener ones.”

– Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups  for reasons of “equity.”

–Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution—including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,”  would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits.”

–A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it:  “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided.”

Click here for the Executive Summary Report.

That  huge catalogue of taxes and spending is described optimistically as “targeted investments  in human and social capital on top of investments in natural capital and green physical capital,” and is accompanied by the claim that it will all, in the long run, more than pay for itself.

But the whopping green “investment” list  barely scratches the surface of the mammoth exercise in global social engineering that is envisaged in the U.N. documents, prepared by the Geneva-based United Nations Environmental Management Group (UNEMG), a consortium of 36 U.N. agencies, development banks  and environmental bureaucracies, in advance of the Rio session.

An earlier version of the report was presented  at a closed door session of the U.N.’s top bureaucrats during a Long Island retreat last October, where Rio was discussed as a “unique opportunity” to drive an expanding U.N. agenda for years ahead.

Click here for more on this story from Fox News.

Under the ungainly title of Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective,  the  final version of the 204-page report is intended to “contribute” to preparations for the Rio + 20 summit, where one of the two themes is “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. ”  (The other theme is “the institutional framework for sustainable development” –sometimes known as global environmental governance.)

But in fact, it also lays out new roles for private enterprise, national governments, and a bevy of socialist-style worker, trade and citizens’ organizations in creating a sweeping international social reorganization, all closely monitored by regulators and governments to maintain environmental “sustainability” and “human equity.”

“Transforming the global economy will require action locally (e.g., through land use planning), at the national level (e.g., through energy-use regulations) and at the international level (e.g., through technology diffusion),” the document says. It involves “profound changes in economic systems, in resource efficiency, in the composition of global demand, in production and consumption patterns and a major transformation in public policy-making.”  It will also require “a serious rethinking of lifestyles in developed countries.”

As the report puts it, even though “the bulk of green investments will come from the private sector,” the “role of the public sector… is indispensable for influencing the flow of private financing.”  It adds that the green economy model “recognizes the value of markets, but is not tied to markets as the sole or best solution to all problems.”

Among other countries, the report particularly lauds China as “a good example of combining investments and public policy incentives to encourage major advances in the development of cleaner technologies.”

Along those lines, it says, national governments need to reorganize themselves to ” collectively design fiscal and tax policies as well as policies on how to use the newly generated revenue”  from their levies. There,  “U.N. entities can help governments and others to find the most appropriate ways of phasing out harmful subsidies while combining that with the introduction of new incentive schemes to encourage positive steps forward.”

U.N. organizations can also “encourage the ratification of relevant international agreements, assist the Parties to implement and comply with related obligations…and build capacity, including that of legislators at national and sub-national levels to prepare and ensure compliance with regulations and standards.”

The report declares that “scaled-up and accelerated international cooperation” is required, with new coordination at “the international, sub-regional, and regional levels.”  Stronger regulation is needed, and “to avoid the proliferation of national regulations and standards, the use of relevant international standards is essential” — an area where the U.N. can be very helpful, the report indicates.

The U.N. is also ready to supply new kinds of statistics to bolster and measure the changes that the organization foresees—including indicators that do away with old notions of economic growth and progress and replace them with new statistics. One example: “the U.N. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), which will become an internationally agreed statistical framework in 2012.” 

These changes, the authors reassure readers, will  only be done in line with the “domestic development agendas” of the countries involved.

“A green economy is not a one-size-fits-all path towards sustainable development,” an executive summary of the report declares.   Instead it is a “dynamic policy toolbox” for local decision-makers, who can decide to use it optionally.

But even so, the  tools are intended for only one final aim. And they have the full endorsement  of U.N. Secretary General Ban, who declares in a forward to the document that “only such integrated approach will lay lasting foundations for peace and sustainable development,” and calls the upcoming Rio conclave a “generational opportunity” to act.

Click here for the full report.

H/T Leslie Burt

Can President Obama Name ONE Clean Energy Success?

By via Heritage Action

President Barack Obama speaks at the Departmen...

 

UPDATE 4-20-12: First Solar, which received $1.46 billion in loan guarantees, announced on Tuesday that it will lay off another 2,000 employees. In December, the company announced it would lay off 100 employees. The Export-Import bank also subsidizes First Solar.

UPDATE 4-10-12: The Willard & Kelsey Solar Group claimed they only received money from Ohio taxpayers. The Ohio-based solar company has gone bankrupt, and according to Recovery.gov (the website set up so that taxpayers could track the money they spent in the “stimulus”) they actually received $6 million from U.S. taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s “green” energy loan program. The company received this money, despite recording just over $500,000 in revenue in 2009 (which was a grant from the state) and a loss of $4.2 million. Money well spent!

UPDATE 4-5-12: A123 Systems, an electric vehicle battery manufacturer which shipped faulty batteries to Fisker Automotive, has seen it’s stock fall to less than $1 and is filing for bankruptcy. It is now fighting a class action lawsuit because of the faulty batteries, charged with deceiving the public, artificially inflating its market price and causing investors to purchase stock at the artificially inflated price. A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees.

Continue reading