Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation

July 30, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Oh, really? Why, oh why am I not shocked to find collusion between Green statists in the government and climate alarmist groups?

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

EPA_collusion
Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a 501 (c) (3) watchdog group, released an investigatory report, Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation  and an appendix of source documents.  The report, which is based on e-mails and other documents obtained under numerous Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests and litigation, details illegal activities by EPA staff, colluding with certain environmental lobbyists to draft EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rules behind the scenes, outside of public view, and to the exclusion of other parties.  More importantly, it clearly shows that EPA must start anew if it wishes to regulate GHGs. (A two-minute companion video is available for use.)
With EPA’s GHG rules going final any day, it is critical to inform the public of the emails detailed in this report for what they show about how…

View original 461 more words


Defector: North Korea testing chemical and biological weapons on… their own people.

July 6, 2015
Hope and Change?

The smiling face of evil.

I could sit here all day –a week, even– dreaming up horrible, lingering deaths for the North Korean ruling class.

And it still would be less than what they deserve:

A NORTH Korean scientist who defected to Finland has promised to expose the regime’s shocking practice of testing chemical weapons in its own citizens.

The biochemical weapons scientist, 47, managed to flee a North Korean research centre on the Chinese border on June 6 via the Philippines, a source from a North Korean human rights group told Yonhap news agency.

He reportedly took with him a storage device loaded with 15 gigabytes of information on the use of humans to test biological and chemical weapons in the North Korean laboratory he worked in. The data would shed light on the regime’s “inhumane tests”, the source told Yonhap.

“His ostensible reason for defection is that he felt sceptical about his research,” the source said.

The defector, known only by his surname Lee, is now expected to give testimony before the European Union parliament later this month.

“Sceptical” is an odd word, don’t you think? “Horrified,” “nauseated,” “outraged,” maybe. But “sceptical” implies thinking “Hmmm… I may be wrong, but, perhaps this isn’t a good idea.”

Then again, in North Korea, even skepticism (US spelling) is treason and can get you shot, so let us not doubt “Mr. Lee’s” bravery for being even “sceptical.”

Meanwhile, here’s just one example of what these human demons do:

Kwon Hyuk, a former head of security at North Korea’s infamous Camp 22, has described gas chambers where chemical experiments were conducted on prisoners.

Appearing on the BBC2 program This World in 2004, Hyuk said healthy prisoners were held inside glass chambers that were filled with gas while technicians observed their agonising deaths.

“I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,” he said in the documentary.

“The parents, son and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but (until) the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.

“At the time I felt that they thoroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault, that we were poor, divided and not making progress as a country.”

As I’ve said before, defector reports can be unreliable; there is a risk they will say what they think their benefactors want to hear in order to get good treatment. But, there are so many reports and they are all so similar that it is hard to discount them. “Mr. Lee” is the first I’ve heard of who claims to have brought with him hard data, not just stories. His testimony should be very interesting.

Let’s hope it hastens the end of the world’s largest prison camp masquerading as a nation, and that it leads to a condign punishment for its jailers.

Especially the pudgy guy at the top.


Jonah Goldberg is right: there is no compromise with culture warriors – Updated

July 1, 2015

liberal tolerance

And by culture warriors I don’t mean social conservatives; they’ve been on the defensive for so many years, I suspect many would be happy with a social compact or understanding that just left them alone.

No, I’m referring to the culture warriors on the Left (and their brethren, the Social Justice Warriors). They demand not only tolerance, but that you celebrate their preferences and beliefs. All of them. And if you disagree, then keep silent, you racist, White-privileged, heteronormative homophobe! If you don’t, you’ll be punished…

Sorry. Got a bit carried away there.

The point is that CWs and SJWs never have a moment of “enough,” a point whereat they decide they’ve achieved their goals, and now it’s time for everyone to relax, for the lion to lie down with the lamb.

Instead, when one victory is achieved, it’s time to push for another and another and another, until all opposition is crushed. In the name of democracy and justice, of course.

That’s the thrust of Jonah Goldberg’s article on Culture Warriors and compromise, and he provides some illustrations:

It is something of a secular piety to bemoan political polarization in this nation. But polarization in and of itself shouldn’t be a problem in a democracy. The whole point of having a democratic republic, never mind the Bill of Rights, is to give people the right to disagree.

A deeper and more poisonous problem is the breakdown in trust. Again and again, progressives insist that their goals are reasonable and limited. Proponents of gay marriage insisted that they merely wanted the same rights to marry as everyone else. They mocked, scorned, and belittled anyone who suggested that polygamy would be next on their agenda. Until they started winning. In 2013, a headline in Slate declared “Legalize Polygamy!” and a writer at the Economist editorialized, “And now on to polygamy.” The Atlantic ran a fawning piece on Diana Adams and her quest for a polyamorous “alternative to marriage.”

We were also told that the fight for marriage equality had nothing to do with a larger war against organized religion and religious freedom. But we now know that was a lie, too. The ACLU has reversed its position on religious-freedom laws, in line with the Left’s scorched-earth attacks on religious institutions and private businesses that won’t – or can’t – embrace the secular fatwa that everyone must celebrate “love” as defined by the Left.

Jonah concludes with a depressing realization: these people “can’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.”

In other words, and as he describes brilliantly in Liberal Fascism, leftist ideology is all-encompassing; it cannot leave anything outside its field of control. No deviation is allowed, and all in an ideal world would be part of a right-thinking “unity,” a State larger than any individual. If you’re an individual who does not celebrate “correct thought” or an organization whose beliefs run counter to the doctrine of the culture warriors –say, for example, a church that views marriage as a divinely created institution to be entered into by a man and a woman only– you cannot be left to your own devices. You must be made to conform. And telling lies along the way to lull you until a point is reached at which you can no longer resist is just fine and dandy.

And that can’t be good for our politics.

UPDATE: My friend “ExJon” has come up with the perfect bumper sticker.


#Obamacare: the only candidate to answer my question

June 26, 2015

ted_cruz

Yesterday, in the wake of the Court’s abominable decision in King v. Burwell, I posted a question to some of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination:

I then pointed out that I would be interested to see not which candidate (1), if any, answered me, but which would give me the most direct, unequivocal answer. Nearly 24 hours later, only one has replied:

Senator Cruz wins for not only being the first and only candidate to answer me, but for giving me the direct, no-bull answer I was seeking. The senator isn’t my first choice for the nomination, but he’s gained quite a few points for quickly answering a stranger’s question.

2016 will turn on three key issues: national security, the economy, and Obamacare. The candidate who has the best positions for all three will get my vote.

Footnote:
(1) Or their staff, let’s be realistic, though I’ve read that Cruz and Rubio handle their own Twitter accounts. Regardless, Cruz’s was the only campaign to give an answer.


(Video) This anti-Hillary ad from the Rick Perry campaign is… “different.”

June 14, 2015

While Governor Perry’s 2012 campaign was a failure, his ad-shop was known for producing good, effective videos.

This ad, however, which shows a cackling cartoon Hillary stopping the “Scooby van” in order to watch a movie about her scandals, makes me wonder if they haven’t been into the “special” mushrooms:

It almost has me thinking they hired Fred Davis, the man behind the “Demon Sheep” ad of Carly Fiorina’s 2010 campaign for the US Senate.

Weird.

UPDATE: Commenter SteveInTN suggests this is based on the old Mystery Science Theater 3,000 show. I’d never watched that regularly, so it went right over my pointy head. Clever on the Perry team’s part, though. Good use of pop culture.

 


Did Hillary Clinton buy the New York Times endorsement in 2008 for $100,000?

June 7, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

That’s the implication in this Washington Free Beacon article. As Alana Goodman portrays it, the Clintons not only dish out favors in return for money, but they know how to play the game the other way, too:

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.

It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.

The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives.

The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”

At the time, there were reports that the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.

The Clinton Family Foundation did not list the specific date the donation was made in its public tax disclosure forms. Neither the Times nor a representative of the Clintons responded by press time to a request for comment. Clinton ended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008.

The CFF’s $100,000 contribution to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is larger than its typical donations.

Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.

The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.

Just like all the favorable State Department decisions that came after foreign governments and business interests made big donations to the Clinton Foundation (or paid Bill for speeches), I’m sure this is all one big coincidence.

Now pull my finger.

(Psst! Read the rest!)


(Video) Nazism and Communism, brothers on the Left

June 7, 2015

One of the great intellectual errors I’ve had to clear myself of in recent years was the belief that Nazism and Communism, Fascism and Bolshevism, were opposites. I’d been taught that the former was the extreme Right, while the latter was the extreme Left.

This is wrong. Both are creations of the Left, ideologies that place the State above the individual and loath free-market capitalism. Jonah Goldberg does a wonderful job explaining that in his Liberal Fascism. But, if you haven’t time to read that (1), this video from Conservative MEP Dan Hannan gives a good quick summary of why, for all their differences, at their core Nazism and Communism were very much alike.

Footnote:
(1) Do yourself a favor and make the time. This book is worth it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,711 other followers