EPA administrator boasts about crucifying oil and gas firms

Tom sent me this article from CNS News.

Excerpt:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

We want to be careful with environmental regulations so that we don’t hurt job creators. We need to work to have money, and we shouldn’t have to give up our prosperity in order to make a few bureaucrats feel as if they are “saving the world”.

Filed under: News, Abuse of Science, Crisis, Democrat Party, Employment, Energy, Environmentalism, Gas Prices, Global Warming, Green Agenda, Green Jobs, Hidden Agenda, Inflation, Jobs, Oil and Gas, Power, Prosperity, Socialism, Supply and Demand, Work

Obama using executive power more frequently to bypass Congress

From the ultra-liberal NewYork Times, of all places.

Excerpt:

One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress.

[...]Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.

Recall that this is the same man who chastised George W. Bush for spending too much – then added more money to the national debt than all of the previous Presidents combined.

Remember this?

But then, as CBS News reports, this happened:

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

[...]The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Wouldn’t it be terrible for our children if we got fooled again by words, instead of looking at actions? What would happen in a second term in which Obama would not have to care about being re-elected?

Filed under: News, Barack Obama, Democrat, Federalism, Liberty, Power, Separation of Concerns, Separation of Powers, Socialism

Alberta judge rules that it is legal to disagree with homosexuality

Political map of Canada

Good news in Alberta.

Excerpt:

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Paul Jeffrey has dismissed a Crown appeal of a decision from a lower court that acquitted Bill Whatcott of trespassing charges for distributing “Truth about homosexuality” pamphlets at the University of Calgary in 2008.

On Friday, March 30, Jeffrey upheld the November 2011 ruling by provincial court Judge John D. Bascom that stated the University of Calgary infringed on Whatcott’s Charter rights to freedom of expression when campus security arrested and detained him for distributing a pamphlet that addressed the “harmful consequences” of homosexuality.

The university had argued that the Charter only applied to “government actors and government actions,” not to the university itself since it was a private entity.

Bascom ruled, however, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the University of Calgary since “the University is not a Charter free zone,” in that it carried out “specific” governmental work by providing post-secondary education to the public in Alberta, making its actions subject to scrutiny under the Charter.

“Mr. Whatcott entered the university property with a purpose to distribute his literature to students, staff and public,” said the judge, adding, “His activity was peaceful and presented no harm to the university structures or those who frequented the campus. … Although Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet is not scholarly, freedom of speech is not limited to academic works.”

Bascom concluded that “the means used by campus security halted Mr. Whatcott’s distribution of these flyers and violated his right of free expression.”

The judge also lifted the University’s ban against Whatcott that would have indefinitely prohibited him from setting foot on the campus again, stating that the ban was “arbitrary and unfair.”

Do you all remember that the University of Calgary is one of the ones that harassed pro-lifers with armed policemen? That’s still better than Carleton University, which actually had pro-lifers arrested by armed policemen.

This Alberta ruling dovetails nicely with a 2010 ruling from the province of Saskatchewan:

In 2010 Whatcott won an appeal in Saskatchewan when Justice Darla Hunter of Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal overturned a 2006 Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruling that found him guilty of violating the province’s human rights code by publicly criticizing homosexuality through a series of flyers he distributed in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.

The tribunal had ordered Whatcott to pay $17,500 and imposed a “lifetime” ban on his freedom to publicly criticize homosexuality.

In her decision Justice Hunter ruled that Whatcott did not violate section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code by distributing flyers to oppose the teaching of homosexuality in Saskatoon’s public schools.

“It is acceptable, in a democracy, for individuals to comment on the morality of another’s behaviour. … Anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression,” Justice Hunter had remarked.

Alberta and Saskatchewan are the two most conservative provinces in Canada. Let’s hope that other provinces move in the same direction.

Filed under: News, Alberta, Canada, Censorship, Control, Fascism, Free Speech, Freedom, Gay Activism, Gay Agenda, Homosexuality, Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal, Left, Leftism, Liberty, Marxism, Political Correctness, Power, Saskatchewan, Socialism, University, University of Calgary

Friday night funny: a conversation with a radical feminist

Everybody likes Friday Night Funny, but no one ever sends me anything funny to post.

Well, I found this video on Jojo’s Facebook page: (some swearing)

This video summarizes almost everything I have ever said about feminism on this blog in two years.

I actually got into a debate with a feminist on Facebook over this video.

Here it is:

• Feminist: If that video is done with its many straw men we could really use them to keep the crows away from the corn.
• Wintery Knight: Hey, can you pick the absolute worst straw man out of your blanket statement and tell us about him? It really isn’t much help to make blanket statements like that since we have no reason to believe something that makes no specific claims.
• Feminist: You’re right, blanket statements and broad generalizations are seldom helpful. A good example of this would be… Oh yes, the video.
• Wintery Knight: Yes, we know you don’t LIKE it in the same way that I don’t LIKE liver and onions. But what specific factual claim do you think is mistaken, and what evidence do you have that this factual claim is mistaken?
• Feminist: Not interested in going blow by blow. They’re consistantly silly claims and I’m sure you’ve debated this enough that we could go in circles for a long period of time.That said, liver and onions done well is delicious and I hope you’ll give it another shot.

That was it. If you guys want more funny stuff posted, you have to send me more funny stuff.

By the way, last month was our best month for traffic ever! Please share the blog with all your friends! You may have noticed that I have gotten rid of all the Google ads by paying for the no-ad upgrade on WordPress. I really hated those stupid ads! By the way, if you ever start a blog, WordPress is the best place to start one.

Also, if you are on Facebook, then please follow my blog!

Also, if you are ever trying to find the blog and can’t remember the URL, just type in
http://winteryknight.com/
instead of the normal wordpress URL. That shorter one works just as well.

One other quick note. If you ever want to search the blog by a tag, just enter the main URL, then add “/tag” then add “/<tag_name>” where tag name is the name of the tag you are searching for.

Like this:

• http://winteryknight.com/tag/apologetics
• http://winteryknight.com/tag/jennifer-roback-morse

Happy Friday!

Filed under: Humor, Biological Clock, Biology, Children, Dependence, Discrimination, Education, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Government, Independence, Power, Sex Differences, Sexism, Welfare

SEIU union thugs rage against private citizen on his own front lawn

SEIU union thugs storm private citizen's home

Story here from CNN Money. (H/T Peter Sean Bradley at Lex Communis)

Excerpt:

Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that — in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action — makes his family fair game.

[...]As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

[...]Now this event would accurately be called a “protest” if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be “mob.” Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might “incite” these trespassers.

And why were the SEIU trying to intimidate a private citizen on his own property?

[Bank of America] is the union’s lender of choice — and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.

Now you know everything you need to know about the people who get Democrats elected. When I think of the SEIU, I think of Hitler’s brown-shirts. (Just as when I think of Obama’s former employer ACORN, I think of the mafia).

This new tactic of violent intimidation defines what it means to be a Democrat today. They don’t want to debate with those who disagree with them, they want to shout obscenities and intimidate dissenters with threats of violence and vandalism – or to attack people and their property, if that’s what is needed. There was a time when Democrats were a mainstream, respectable party – the party of JFK. But that time is gone.

It’s not difficult for me to compare Democrats gangs with the socialist Greek rioters who murdered three people while burning down a bank – it’s the next stage of the “striking” and “community organizing” that the left is so fond of. They want their inflated salaries, their pensions, and their generous health care plans – and they will use violence and intimidation in order to get someone else’s money to pay for it.

Filed under: News, ACORN, Barack Obama, Brown Shirt, Brutality, Corrupt, Corruption, Crime, Criminal, Democrat, Dirty, Gangbangers, Gangs, Goon, Intimidation, Mafia, Mafisosi, Mob, Mob Rule, Power, SEIU, Socialism, Street Thugs, Syndicate, Terrorism, Terrorist, Thug, Union