Well my, my, my. Jerry Brown using state resources to explore for oil on his land?

November 5, 2015

Oil Tycoon

No wonder you don’t oppose fracking, Governor:

Gov. Jerry Brown last year directed state oil and gas regulators to research, map and report back on any mining and oil drilling history and “potential for future oil and gas activity” at the Brown family’s private land in Northern California, state records show.

After a phone call from the governor and follow-up requests from his aides, senior staffers in the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency over at least two days produced a 51-page historical report and geological assessment, plus a personalized satellite-imaged geological and oil and gas drilling map for the area around Brown’s family ranchland near the town of Williams.

State regulators labeled the map they did for Brown “Oil and Gas Potential In West Colusa County,” and “JB-Ranch,” referring to the Brown family land in Colusa County.

Ultimately, the regulators told the governor, prospects were “very low” for any commercial drilling or mining at the 2,700-acre property, which has been in Brown’s family for more than a century.

Through the state’s open records law, The Associated Press obtained the research that state regulators carried out for Brown, and the emails among senior oil and gas regulators scrambling to fulfill the governor’s request.

Brown spokesman Evan Westrup declined to discuss the work for the governor, referring the AP to California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. That agency said the work was a legal and proper use of public resources – and no more than the general public would get. But oil industry experts said they could not recall a similar example of anyone getting that kind of state work done for private property.

Brown’s request to state regulators amounted to the governor using state workers as “his own private oil prospecting team,” said Hollin Kretzmann, a staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

In fact, as I’m sure is true in most, if not all, states, it is illegal for state officials to use state resources and personnel for private projects. Usually, that means you’re not allowed to have office staff help your reelection campaign on state time, or pick up your groceries.

But, in this case, our beloved governor (Really, he is the sanest Democrat in Sacramento, which is scary) used public resources and funds to explore for “black gold” on his private land. And, if the site had been found promising, I’m sure Jerry would have been cool with extracting it via fracking. Not that I oppose fracking (I don’t), but this perhaps explains why the famously liberal, environmentally conscious Governor Moonbeam has gone against the Green lobby on this.

This reminds me of something I think Peter Schweizer wrote in his book, “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy “, paraphrasing:

“When conservatives violate their principles, they harm themselves. When liberals violate theirs, they prosper.”

Naughty, naughty, Governor!

via Flash Report

If Mitt Romney were president

October 18, 2015
"Voters' remorse"

“Alternate universe”

Let’s just say the ethics of the antiwar movement (1) are “situational”:

If Romney had been elected in 2012 and in the year before his reelection campaign had bombed a hospital, decided to keep troops in Afghanistan, and had details of his robot assassin program leaked, things would probably look a little different today.

If Romney were president right now, the White House would be surrounded by protesters and candlelight peace vigils night and day. Some would wave American flags, some would wave signs calling for impeachment, some would have pictures caricaturing the president as Hitler or an animal. They would chant “Not in our name!”, or “Bring them home!”, or “Hey ho, hey ho, Romney has got to go!”

If Romney were president, nightly news reports on CBS, NBC, and ABC would have regular features on war crimes, quagmires, and collateral damage. CNN would be wall-to-wall with team coverage of protests, interviews of bombing witnesses, and Anderson Cooper walking through rubble in full body armor.

If Romney were president, every political analyst left of Judge Napolitano would be fretting over the war-weary public turning the upcoming election into a referendum against the president and his party. Vox and FiveThirtyEight would have maps showing how many Senate seats Republicans would lose because of the president’s sure-to-plummet approval rating. And then there’s MSNBC.

And let’s not forget, Cindy Sheehan would still be in demand.

Be sure to read the rest.

via Instapundit

(1) Funny how they seemed to nearly vanish once a left-wing Democrat took office. It’s almost as if they really didn’t care about the war and were just using it for political gain. Nah…

Hypocrisy, thy name is “Hillary”

March 5, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

Perfect. While Lady Macbeth was running her own private email network on her own private servers hidden in her own private home, she fired our ambassador to Kenya for… running his own private network.

Only in America; only the Clintons:

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards.

And I bet the parallel never occurred to her.

The brass of this clan is just amazing.

Immigration: the Mexican president is a two-faced hypocrite

October 6, 2014
"Do as I say..."

“Do as I say…”

Ya gotta love the the guy’s brass, lecturing us on immigration policy and “discrimination,” when his own nation enshrines far worse in its constitution.

Here’s Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria (1):

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto decried a “discriminatory” nature to the immigration reform debate in the U.S., telling CNN the relationship between the two countries is “a lot broader” than the one issue.

“The number of daily crossings, legal crossings, every day. About a million people every day, legal crossings that come. People coming and going from one country to the other because of work and trade and the trade level that we have which is so broad which we will probably talk about,” the president said.

When asked by Fareed Zakaria if some of the rhetoric around the debate was “racist,” Nieto replied, “I think it’s discriminatory, yes, and I think it’s unfortunate for a country whose formation and historic origin relies so much on the migration flows of many parts, Europe, Asia, for instance.”

“I think this is a country whose origin to a great extent is one of migration and that’s why it’s unfortunate to hear this exclusionary and discriminatory tone regarding the migration flows into the United States,” he continued. “Today we have to recognize that the migration that comes from Mexico to the United States has fallen.”

He’s right that illegal migration to the US has slowed, both because of our own economic troubles and a growth of opportunities in Mexico. But, that’s not the point. What galls me is that Mexico has far worse discrimination hardwired into its national charter. Article 32 of the Mexican constitution contains the following:

“Only Mexicans by birth can perform all government employments, positions, or commissions in which the status of citizenship is indispensable. During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies. During peacetime, only Mexicans by birth can serve in the Army, in the Navy or in the Air Force as well can perform any employment or commission within such corporations.

The same condition applies to captains, pilots, skippers, ship engineers, flight engineers and, in general, to every crew member in a ship or an airplane carrying the Mexican flag. In the same way, only Mexicans by birth can be port harbormasters, steersmen and airport superintendents.

Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners, under equal circumstances, for all kind of concessions, employments, positions or commissions of the government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”

And here’s an excerpt from Article 33:

“The President of the Republic shall have the power to expel from national territory any foreigner, according to the law and after a hearing. The law shall establish the administrative procedure for this purpose, as well as the place where the foreigner should be detained and the time for that. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

Unless these articles were repealed or substantially liberalized after President Peña Nieto came to power, I call bulls… “foul” on his criticisms of the United States, which has trouble even enforcing its own immigration laws, a problem Mexico doesn’t have.

Before you criticize how we handle our affairs, señor Presidente, straighten out your own house, first.

(1) A noted accused plagiarist, by the way.


Hillary Clinton, populist heroine

August 19, 2014

One of us?

One of us?

Via the Free Beacon, what says “woman of the people” more than demanding the presidential suite in the hotel of your choice as part of your speaking fees?

Documents for one of Clinton’s upcoming events reveal that she charges a whopping $300,000 speaking fee, requests 20 seats for guests picked by Clinton herself, a chartered Gulfstream 450 jet for round trip transportation for 16 people, and round trip business class seating for two of her staffers to check out the locale. Additionally, Clinton demands that a presidential hotel suite be booked for her and three adjoining rooms for her aides. Clinton also requests that her lead travel aide be given a $500 stipend and that meals, incidentals, and phone charges for Clinton and her aides be paid for by the host. A stenographer will be hired, but only Clinton will be given the transcript of her speech.

Hosts must agree that Clinton will not spend more than 90 minutes at the speaking engagement, that she will not pose for more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people (including her 20 guests) and the host is strictly forbidden from advertising the event as well as allowing press to cover the event.

Remember folks, she’s one of us. Why, she and Bill left the White House in 2001 darned near broke, which is probably why they could afford to buy only two mansions in swanky areas.

Just like the rest of us.

The former senator and secretary of state wants to be seen as understanding the struggles of everyday folks,  and she’s tried hard to show that common touch.

Which is kind of hard to do, when the hand you’re extending has a ring on it you expect to be kissed.

Six Astounding Examples of Left-Wing Hypocrisy

July 18, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Remember, kiddies: It’s “do as I say, not as I do.”

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Last month, I nailed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their gross hypocrisy on the death tax.

But that’s just one example. Today, we’re going to experience a festival of statist hypocrisy. We have six different nauseating examples of political elitists wanting to subject ordinary people to bad policy while self-exempting themselves from similar burdens.

Our first three examples are from the world of taxation.

Here are some excerpts from a Washington Timesreport about a billionaire donor who is bankrolling candidates who support higher taxes, even though he structured his hedge fund in low-tax jurisdictions specifically to minimize the fiscal burdens of his clients.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist who is spending $100 million to help elect Democrats this fall, is rallying support for energy taxes that could impact everyday Americans. But when he ran his own hedge fund, Mr. Steyer sought to help wealthy clients legally avoid paying…

View original 1,129 more words

Income Inequality and Guilt-Ridden Leftists

June 6, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

In other words, “You have been successful, and for your sins you will be punished!” And then the policies they advocate create the inequality they purport to hate. Genius.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Our leftist friends have decided that income inequality is a scourge that must be addressed.

That might be a noble goal if they were motivated by a desire to improve the lives of the less fortunate.

Based on their policy proposals, though, it appears that the main goal is to punish the so-called rich. And they’re so fixated on that objective, Margaret Thatcher pointed out, that they’re willing to make the poor worse off.

And what’s especially bizarre is that rich leftists are among the biggest cheerleaders for these policies. Heck, I’ve even debated some of these limousine liberals, as you can see here and here.

But maybe their feelings of self-loathing and guilt are justified. After all, it seems that statist policies are actually associated with higher degrees of income inequality.

Let’s see what Steve Moore and Rich Vedder discovered when they looked at evidence…

View original 584 more words


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,492 other followers