Time's up

Probe uncovers widespread illegal activity by Obama EPA

"Republican lawmakers are demanding a former top Environmental Protection Agency official’s texts and emails that could point to collusion with environmental activist group," The Daily Caller reports.

"Documents show that in 2011, then-EPA Associate Administrator for Policy Michael Goo seemingly used his private e-mail account to routinely communicate with outside groups attempting to influence agency policy," House Science Committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

"News reports have shown Goo, who now works for the Department of Energy, has close ties with environmental activists. He communicated with activists using a private email account and set up meetings outside EPA property to prevent them from being public record," The Daily Caller reports.

The messages would indicate the nation's wealthiest environmentalist groups are illegally colluding with Obama officials.

"Another e-mail sent from the Sierra Club to Mr. Goo’s private e-mail account states, ‘[a]ttached is a memo I didn’t want to send in public,'" Smith writes. "Mr. Goo was complicit in the lack of transparency by complying with the Sierra Club’s request because he failed to disclose the e-mail for two years"

This major environmentalist claim is a total lie

Everyone from Barack Obama to that patchloui-drenched hippie at Whole Foods loves to claim "97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real."

One problem.

It's a total lie.

Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, explains the scam:

The most highly-cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52 per cent said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 per cent either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53 per cent agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97 per cent consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

So that "97 percent"  "consensus" is actually a 50/50 split.  

And with the government spending millions researching the conspiract theory, many of the scientists who think man-made climate change wouldn't have a job if they said otherwise.

There are also other scientific questions in play.

* Are global temperatures rising, falling, or staying the same?
* If global temperatures are rising, how much of that is due to the fact we're still emerging from an Ice Age?
* Considering current global temperatures are lower than the average seen over 4 billion years, what is the Earth's "correct temperature," and are we below it?
* If temperatures are rising, is human activity contributing anything whatsoever to it considering the Earth itself produces exponentally more CO2 than humans ever could?
* Would dimishing U.S. CO2 outputs have any effect whatsoever?

The science is anything but settled.

New Obama rule bans most outdoor grills

Under orders from the president, the EPA has decided to wage war against summer staples such as backyard cookouts and Fourth of July fireworks shows," writes Drew Johnson in The Washington Times.

"Absurdly low ground-level ozone standards are the latest – and likely the most expensive and oppressive – regulations the EPA has proposed adding to its already mountainous list of rules and directives suffocating the American economy.

"Because the proposed ozone standards are set so low, things as harmless as several barbeque grills cooking at the same time in the same area, or even a festive fireworks being launched during an Independence Day celebration, could tip an area already on the brink of surpassing federal ozone thresholds over the edge and into “nonattainment.”

"In an attempt to steer clear of punishment, local lawmakers are likely to respond to the new EPA rules by enacting municipal grilling bans and cancelling fireworks shows from coast-to-coast."

Environmentalists sue to stop Independence Day

When a small band of environmentalists sued to stop a major California city from celebrating Independence Day, the increasingly radical environmentalist movement managed to perfectly crystallize its agenda.

In 2010, 2011 and 2014, a California environmentalist group sued San Diego and two community charities, demanding fireworks be banned from Independence Day celebrations.  The suits claim 20 minutes of aerial fireworks will destroy La Jolla Cove and all life in it.

Even stupider, this tactic successfully shut down San Diego’s 2010 New Year’s Day fireworks celebration.  Of the four lawsuits, environmentalists successfully banned fireworks in three. 

That’s right. No spleen-splitters. No honkey lighters. No hoosker doos. No hoosker don’ts. No cherry bombs. No nipsy daisers (with or without the scooter stick). Not one single whistlin’ kitty chaser.

Just snakes and sparklers.

If they’re feeling generous.

The environmentalists also walked away with $250,000.00 in cash.

Yes, environmentalists actually believe a small fireworks shows can destroy the planet, and they will sue you and take your money if you express disagreement.

But the real issue here is bigger than a small fireworks show.

You see, environmentalists don’t hate fireworks.

What they despise with a poisonous rage is the concept they celebrate – that government’s power is limited and may be exercised only with the consent of the governed.

While they sue to stop a celebration of the Declaration of Independence, their comrades in Washington are battling to eradicate the concept of government that the Declaration of Independence so eloquently defends.

Stymied on Capitol Hill by popular opposition to boondoggles like last year’s cap-and-tax bill, the Obama administration is increasingly using the unchecked power of regulatory agencies to write and enforce federal dictates, going around Congress to impose the most radical, expensive and job-killing of environmentalist schemes.

Obama is in open defiance of a core tenet of the Declaration of Independence — its statement that government must derive its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

And Americans have good reason to refuse to give their consent to Obama’s destructive environmentalist agenda.

In all, job creators spent $1.75 trillion to comply with federal regulations in 2008. That’s $15,000 per family just to follow rules that are often written by career political activists in Washington. Since businesses earn revenue from consumers, that $1.75 trillion comes directly from the pocket of cash-strapped consumers.

The costly onslaught of radical rule by regulatory declaration is coming down even harder under Barack Obama’s aggressive environmentalist agenda, as many utility customers, for example, are now finding out.

“Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations,” The Hill reported yesterday. “The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA’s efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions …

“The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form … The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.”

That’s a 35 percent higher utility bill, essentially a massive federal energy tax, invented and levied on consumers with no vote or even consideration by Congress.

Fully aware that the rule was so fanatical that Congress would reject it, the Obama administration ordered its EPA bureaucrats to impose it instead.

This begs a serious constitutional question: Why are laws no longer made by lawmakers?

That’s what Sen. Rand Paul is asking. His REINS Act (S. 226) requires any proposed federal regulation with an economic impact greater than $100 million to be considered and approved by both chambers of Congress as a resolution and then signed by the president before it can take effect.

In other words, America’s government must derive it powers from the consent of the governed.

Environmentalists may sue to outlaws fireworks, but the thought of letting Americans have a say in laws and regulations affecting them is sending greens into orbit.

That’s why BetterEconomy.org, a grassroots-supported citizens’ group advocating rational energy and environmental policy, is making a recorded vote of the Senate and House on the REINS Act a top legislative priority.

Citizens have a right to have a say in the passage of laws and regulations through their accountable lawmakers, as well as to know whether their elected representative is one of those environmentalist lawmakers opposing that founding principle.

So, who is fighting to block a recorded vote on the REINS Act and deny Americans something as fundamentally proper as their right to have a voice in their government?

The same sorts of people who are suing to shut down celebrations of the document that states that government must draw its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Backed by the Obama administration, Public Citizen (which opposed the Senate’s cap-and-tax bill because it didn’t make family electric bills high enough to stop the use of electricity) is one of the leftist special interest groups now on the warpath against Sen. Paul’s REINS Act and groups like BetterEconomy.org.

The group says that allowing lawmakers to make laws, rather than unelected D.C bureaucrats, “would replace a process based on expertise, rationality and openness with one characterized by political maneuvering, economic clout and secrecy.”

No word on whether the members of the group warmed up and stretched before engaging in the logical backflips it takes to describe the closed-door meetings of unelected bureaucrats as “openness” while claiming the public debate and vote of accountable lawmakers before C-SPAN cameras is “secrecy.”

America’s founding belief that the only proper form of government is one that serves with the consent of the governed is a threat to environmentalists’ unpopular and far-out agenda. Not only are they suing to stop our celebration of that declaration, they are waging an aggressive war to expand the power of regulatory agencies and relegate representative government to the history books.

Don’t let them snuff out our freedoms, or our celebration of them. As environmentalism continues to impose heavy costs on the pocketbooks and freedoms of Americans, Sen. Paul’s REINS Act is a simple and common sense move to restore our founding principles.

Donny Ferguson is President of BetterEconomy.org, the nation's most effective grassroots-powered opponent of the radical environmentalist lobby.  This column originally appeared in The Daily Caller on July 1, 2011.  It has been updated to reflect recent developments.

Conservative group’s Global Warming Hot Sauce piques environmentalist scandals

Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce available at BetterEconomy.org for just $9.95

“Man-made global warming may be a money-making fraud, but with Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce the flavor is real.”


WASHINGTON -- A conservative advocacy group is letting Americans create fake warming at home with a new line of “Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce.”

“Whether you’re in the kitchen or promoting the environmentalist agenda we’ve all been in a situation where you told people something would be hot, but it’s not,” says Americans for a Better Economy President Donny Ferguson.  It doesn’t matter if you’re cooking dinner or the books, because Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce lets you become a climate researcher in your own kitchen. Hide the decline of flavor and instantly create the appearance of warming where none exists.”
“It’s available at BetterEconomy.org for just $9.95.  Now you can annoy a liberal while livening up a meal!,” said Ferguson. 

“At least we’re honest enough to admit we’re making money by manipulating something to make it seem hotter,” said Ferguson. “Man-made global warming may be a money-making fraud, but with Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce the flavor is real.  Just don’t use tax dollars.”

Mann-Made Global Warming Hot Sauce is available at BetterEconomy.org for $9.95 a bottle and comes in five flavors: Climategate Cayenne, Carbon Tax Chipotle, Redistributionist Red Savina, Hide The Decline Habanero and Hockey Stick Jalapeno.

“Environmentalists are being paid millions of tax dollars by left-wing politicians to falsify research and fake data,” said Ferguson.  “If your research backs up the fact there is no man-made global warming, politicians cut off the research funds and you lose your job.   Politicians paid for this research and dictate what the results must be, so they can use it to agitate for massive tax hikes and schemes to increase their own power.”

The product references several scandals in which scientists paid with tax dollars to prove man-made global warming exists were caught manipulating data to create the appearance of rising temperatures.  Among them is the University of Virginia and Penn State University researcher Michael Mann, who exploited what researchers called “a trick” to “hide the decline” of global temperatures.

Unlike most scientists, Mann refuses to disclose how he conducts his research and has sued citizens who asked him to explain why he was manipulating data.

Democrat official ordered armed paramilitary raids on homes of Scott Walker supporters

Acting on orders from a Democrat district attorney, officers held a 16-year-old boy at gunpoint and told him he was not allowed to speak to an attorney. On another raid they made a woman dress in front of them. They made another woman wake her children so they could hold the family at gunpoint.
Their crimes?

They said nice things about a Republican.

ISIS isn't the only totalitarian cult that like attacking museums.

Liberals have no organized a mob outside a Detroit museum, demanding they rip down an exhibit Kid Rock paid for because several years ago he once used a Confederate flag in a concert.

This is no way addresses racism, and liberals know this does nothing to address racism.

Liberals love organizing mobs and threatening people because like any totalitarian belief, liberalism requires you to live in perpetual fear of its power, which reaches into every detail of your life and will strike anywhere, anytime, over even the smallest issue.