Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Environment, Junk Science, Law, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Federal Judge Royce Lamberth, FOIA Requests, The Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth today warned the EPA not to discriminate against conservative groups in how it responds to open records requests. He said the agency may have lied to the court and showed “apathy and carelessness” in carrying out the law.
He said he could not prove that officials intentionally destroyed documents, but he described as an “absurdity” the way the EPA handled a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Landmark Legal Foundation and the court case stemming from it—including late last week admitting that it misled the court about how it went about “searching for documents.”
In a scorching 25-page opinion, the judge accused the agency of insulting him by first claiming it had conducted a full search for records, then years later retracted that claim in a footnote to another document without giving any explanation for how it erred.
“The recurrent instances of disregard that EPA employees display for FOIA obligations should not be tolerated by the agency,” the judge said. “This court would implore the executive branch to take greater responsibility in ensuring that all EPA FOIA requests — regardless of the political affiliation of the requester — are treated with equal respect and conscientiousness.”
This particular ruling can also be seen as a rebuke to President Obama who vowed to run the “most transparent administration in history” but has received constant challenges over how that vow has been carried out. Judge Lamberth made a point of the EPA delay of follow through on Landmark’s request until after the 2012 elections, and said explanations by EPA officials for why they failed to live up to the law “defied reason.”
Mark Levin, Landmark’s president, said it is up to the president to decide how to respond, but people should be fired. Nena Shaw and Eric Wachter, Judge Lamberth said, either lied to the court or showed utter indifference to the law.
Is it proper to send roses to a federal court? Probably not, but this arrogant agency certainly deserves a legal slap-down.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Media Bias, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: Bibi Netanyahu, The New York Times, Times' "Corrections"
Well, well. All that huffing and puffing, the firestorm about Bibi Netanyahu not informing the White House before he accepted Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address Congress? The New York Times even used the word “unprecedented.” Bibi had not only “disrespected” the current occupant of the White House, whose aides had called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “chickenshit” and disrespected the institution of the Presidency itself. Ignoring Protocol, they claimed.
It was one of the New York Times’ infamous “corrections.”Attached on January 30 to a story that ran the previous day about Benjamin Netanyahu’s difficult relations with the Democratic Party. Here is the correction in its entirety: “An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.”
Every other news source picked up the article about the “disrespect” on the basis of the Times report. As the Tablet reported:
The decent thing to do would’ve been to write another piece altogether, contemplate why the paper of record got suckered so badly by the White House—which gained plenty from the manufactured story—and amend any and all implications of Bibi’s perfidy and bad manners that arose from the original report.
But that’s the state of the news business today. Times’ corrections provide a continuing source of amusement. NBC is trying desperately to decide if they can possibly rescue Brian Williams from his perfidy, and the “mainstream media” wonders why subscriptions are declining.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Global Warming, Junk Science, Media Bias, Military, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: Plenty of Ice at the Poles, Polar Bears Are Fine, The Arctic Is Not Melting
Have you heard that the ice is melting at the poles in a clear sign of climate catastrophe? Last night I was listening to a podcast of the John Batchelor show, and heard an admiral saying how useful drones would be for patrolling the Arctic when it was ice free. Huh?
I was surprised that the idea that the ice at the poles is catastrophically melting has inflicted the military, and apparently military planning. The ice freezes in the winter and melts some in the summer. Every year.
Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts is going to get some grief from the global warming true believers for not adhering to the article of faith that man is overheating the Earth by burning fossil fuels.
Arctic sea ice has reached the largest December extent in a decade. Federal experts will not acknowledge this since their funding depends on a misinformed Congress and gullible public.
“The North and South Poles are ‘not melting,'”the British Express reported on Christmas. “In fact,” the Express said in its coverage of Maksym’s finding, the poles are ‘much more stable ‘ than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”
The ‘narrative’ in America is that the ice is melting, and you will find little confirmation in the media that that is not the case. Remember the “walrus scare,” the constant assertion that the polar bears are endangered, threatened, dying, suffering because of a lack of ice? It has been a constant story, enlivened by pictures of bears crouched on too-small bits of ice, looking pathetic. Well, never fear.
There is plenty of ice at the poles, north and south. Not melting.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Taxes | Tags: "Tax Distortions", Unexpected Behavior Changes, Economy-Wide Distortions
Today’s economics lesson is from Casey Mulligan, professor of economics at the University of Chicago. In an article about the effects of the Affordable Care Act on Economic Productivity from Imprimus, he begins with a key economic concept called “tax distortions.”
Tax distortions are changes in behavior on the part of businesses or households for the purpose of reducing their taxes or increasing their subsidies. We call them distortions because they don’t occur for real business or real personal reasons. They occur because of the tax code. A prime example of a tax policy that creates distortions is the ethanol subsidy—technically it is a credit, not a subsidy—whereby gasoline refiners are subsidized on the basis of how many gallons of gas they produce with ethanol. Because of this subsidy, businesses change the type of gas they produce and deliver, people change the type of gas they use—which affects engines—and corn is used for ethanol instead of as feed or food. Nor do the distortions stop there. Arguably, food prices are increased due to the re-location of corn to different uses—and when food prices are higher, restaurants and households do things differently. There are distortions economy-wide, all for the chasing of a subsidy.
To be clear, just because taxes cause distortions doesn’t mean that we should never have taxes. It just means that in order to get the full picture when it comes to policies like an ethanol subsidy or laws such as the ACA, we need to take into account the tax distortions in order to ensure that the benefits we are seeking exceed the costs.
Tuck that one away in the back of your head, and haul it out when another wonderful scheme is offered to save the planet or care for our health and well-being.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Media Bias, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: A Natural Process, Always Warming and Cooling, Panic (Preserved)
“The White House forged ahead Monday with yet another piece of its climate change agenda and bragged that Republicans are powerless to stop it.” reported the Washington Times.
A presidential task force unveiled a report on how communities across the country can prepare for the effects of global warming. In all, the recommendations on “climate preparedness and resilience” could cost the federal government more than $100 billion to protect drinking water supplies, shore up coastlines against rising sea levels and take other preventive measures.
The rise in sea level is measured in millimeters, not feet. There has been no warming at all for over eighteen years. The ice is already forming on the Great Lakes, and it looks like we’re in for a really cold winter—yet the EPA is intent on shutting down as many coal-fired power plants as they can because they might emit carbon dioxide — which is a natural fertilizer that is making our forests grow and helping to feed the world. In New England, they had a hard time providing enough power last winter, and will have to depend on Canada to get through this one.
For at least 120 years climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate is going to kill us all, they just keep switching to a global ice age or a hotter globe. Here’s a timeline of claims about the climate: (Do read it all)
- 1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
- 1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
- 1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
- 1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
- 1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
- 1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
- 1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
- 1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
- 1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
- 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
- 1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
- 1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thruout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
- 1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
- (Continued…keep reading)