APRIL 19, 2009
Climate Corruption Coming Our Way
The power of the EPA is exceptional and states it is now ready to regulate carbon emissions. The Supreme Court ruling that "under the Clean Air Act" the EPA has the authority to define heavy concentrations of CO2 as a pollutant is what brought us this announcement. In EPA takes first step toward climate change regs Senator Barbara Boxer of California is quoted as saying it is better if these actions are explicitly supported by Congressional approval, but appears content to permit the Executive Branch to do as it wishes. The EPA has concluded that the science is "compelling and overwhelming" that man made pollution is "a" cause of global warming.
Of course, this is nonsense. What is true is that man contributes to carbon emissions and for the last 300 years there has been a slight warming trend after the last little "ice age". What is most definitely not "overwhelming and compelling" is any evidence that "man made" CO2 emissions contributes to global warming. Further, there is no "overwhelming and compelling" evidence that what is proposed will have any meaningful effect on CO2 emissions. There is also no "overwhelming and compelling" evidence that the cost-benefit of limiting CO2 emissions is beneficial to humankind. What is "overwhelming and compelling" is that we now live in a world driven by ideology and complete Government control.
As with the financial crisis, we will see favored firms being "excepted" from regulation and many ad hoc adjustments made along the way. One of the great benefits to the political/bureaucratic class of "impossible to obey" regulations is they get to "play for pay" in so many ways. This is a corrupt system brought on by an unholy alliance of financial firms (who get to make money on "cap and trade"), researchers (who are funded to the tune of billions to write papers supporting the Government's view), crony capitalists in the so-called "green technology" industry, the anti-capitalist ideologues of the so-called environmental movement, and finally, the various branches of Government who get to play money/power broker. This is a joke.
"What about me, Al Franken?"
Back in the late 70s and early 80s, when Al Franken actually was funny, he had a skit on SNL in which he supported some "do good" proposal by the Government. However, he always qualified his support by how the proposal would impact "me, Al Franken". In Minnesota, we get to see how old Al is benefited by the Government's seemingly endless ability to find ways to get what it wants by fiat (what is it with Democrats named "Al" and recounts?) Minnesota's Missing Votes. The WSJ makes the clear and evident case that the 3 panel arbitration panel was either in the tank for Al, simply stupid and/or weak, or some combo of all 3. They changed rules after the fact, applied uneven standards on the recount procedures, and created an all around mess, all in support of Franken. The Franken brigade is counting on Minnesota voters to tire of the procedure and on Coleman's financial resources to dry up. Coleman has a clear case to bring before the State Supreme Court. But in this political climate, where the Department of Homeland Security can issue Fatwas against anyone espousing conservative principles, the energy to support Coleman is waning.
"Appearance of Impropriety"
Remember that line? It means you can be reasonably deemed to have done something unethical or illegal simply by appearance without regard to demonstrating the underlying facts. This always struck me as an ambiguous concept. Either you are unethical or a crook; or you are not. Appearance, by definition, is just that. I recall this term being used originally in the 80s to condemn certain republican nominees for various posts. The "appearance" concept also provided cover for ad hominem attacks. This has become a quaint concept, as people like Senator Chris Dodd, Tim Geithner, Henry Paulson, and Rep. Charlie Rangel so amply demonstrate. Still, the term can be useful when there is evidence of unethical behavior, even if there has not been a formal procedure to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
How about "the appearance of anti-American behavior"? Is that a legitimate concept? Barack Obama seems hell bent on showing the world he can kow tow with the best of them. He began his world wide straw man apology tour last summer in Berlin when he apologized for America's lack of perfection. As if anyone proclaims that America is perfect. In his first week in office he went on Al Arabiya television to proclaim "America is not your enemy" to the "Muslim world" as if anyone said other wise. He apologized to Latin America last week for America not having "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors". What does that mean? Has he ever heard of NAFTA? It is his administration which is flirting with going soft on trade with Latin America Gateway Pundit: Surprise-- Obama Apologizes to Latin American. He also tossed up the straw man of "unbridled and unregulated capitalism" in his Latin American speech as some evil product of America.
He appears in public with the murderer anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez and the virulent anti American Communist Daniel Ortega. He permits Janet Napolitano to release a screed against normal Americans under the guise of a domestic terrorist threat. He permits the interrogation techniques of the CIA to be released to the world, leading to some in Congress threatening CIA personnel with criminal accusations. He has advanced Orwellian speech to levels not even conceived by Orwell himself: "man made disasters", "overseas contingencies operations".
When one steps back and looks at the big picture one sees a US president promoting America's future weakness and also proclaiming its immorality as its primary "exceptional" feature. Is this why America, more than any other place in the world, is the destination of choice for those seeking either refuge from domestic violence or opportunity not available at home (his own father came from Kenya)? What is he doing? He is promoting some "3rd way". Who is his audience? Those who feel aggrieved by America. Why is he doing this? Because he wants those who feel aggrieved by America to support him. But, again, why? That is the $64,000 question. I don't really know the answer. But it does give the "appearance of anti-American impropriety". Needless to say, foreign governments could give a damn about his phony moral preening or whatever it is. Dopey Joe Biden's Nostradamus prediction may yet be fulfilled "Gird Your Loins".