Rick Santorum is right. Pushing back against Democrats’ attempts to frame him as a religious menace, the GOP presidential candidate forcefully turned the tables on the White House: “When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones.”
Scrutiny of the White House anti-science brigade couldn’t come at a better time (which is why Santorum’s detractors prefer to froth at the mouth about comments he made four years ago on the existence of Satan). It’s not just big-ticket scandals like the stimulus-subsidized Solyndra bankruptcy or the Keystone pipeline debacle bedeviling America. In every corner of the Obama administration, the radical green machinery is hard at work — destroying jobs, shredding truth, and sacrificing our economic well-being at the altar of environmentalism.
Advertisement
Take Obama’s head of the National Park Service — please. While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences. Extensive information about Jarvis’s alleged role in cooking data about a California oyster farm’s impact on harbor seals at Point Reyes was withheld during the 2009 nomination process. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has ignored complaints and follow-up from both Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican senators James Inhofe and David Vitter.
The National Research Council determined that the NPS had “selectively” slanted its report on the oyster farm. The federal Marine Mammal Commission found that “the data and analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship” between the farm’s operations and harbor-seal health. In a letter blasting the NPS for bullying the small oyster farm, Feinstein — normally a reliable eco-ally — concluded earlier this month that the “crux of the problem is that the Park Service manipulated science while building a case that the business should be shuttered.”
Given Salazar’s own role in manipulating science while building his case for the White House offshore-drilling moratorium — actions for which several federal judges spanked Salazar over the past two years — it’s no wonder he’s looking the other way.
Remember: Two years ago, Salazar and former Obama eco-czar Carol Browner falsely rewrote the White House drilling-ban report to wholly manipulate the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict. Despite repeated judicial slaps for their “determined disregard” for the law, the Obama administration continues to suppress documents related to that junk-science scandal. Last month, House Republicans threatened to subpoena the Interior Department for information. Call it a greenwash.
Although Siskiyou County may want to secede from the State of California, it has not happened yet. If these functioning hydro projects are indeed torn out, will this power generation be replaced with fossil-fuels?
Forget the fact that Siskiyou doesn't have the sunny clime to make solar feasible or that wind has a greater negative environmental impact than hydroelectric does. And frankly, considering that solar panels need to cover such a huge area, one has to wonder the negative environmental impact they could have. (A solar field covers about 100 times the acreage of a nuclear power plant in order to produce the same amount of electricity -- and then, only during the day.)
Oh, and as much as 30% of California's electricity comes from out of state. (Rolling blackouts! What fun those were!) California is es-cee-are-ee-double-you-ee-dee! Big time.
I say, put the tree-huggers and BANANA's ("Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything") to work in something akin to hampster wheels that generate electricity. They don't want hydroelectric, fossil fuel or nuclear plants? Let them be responsible for generating electricity then!
Obama is gutting our military, destroying our economic engine, creating a government takeover of our healthcare system, and breaking down our energy infrastructure to the point of unreliability, not to mention behaving outside of the constitutional constraints of his office. Yet, in all of this the media has managed to focus the public debate on birth control, a complete non-subject. If the Republican candidates have any sense they'll focus like a laser on what Obama is doing in all of their adds, debates and discussions, and when the mainstream media tries to manipulate the conversation away from the most destructive president in history, steer them back to the conversation at hand. Instead of conservatives being forced to respond to liberal talking points force the administration to respond to having its sleazy behavior exposed. Ignore the liberal media.
Having said all of that, can anyone show me how Obama is trying to create a socialist utopia by doing this and not a third world dictatorship?
I am shocked and outraged that the author would use a photograph of DOI Secretary Salazar and NPS Director Jarvis that was taken during the memorial service of Margaret Anderson, the national park ranger that was shot and killed in the line of duty at Mount Rainier National Park while defending park visitors from a deranged killer for use in this article. The author is dishonest and immoral at worst, or incredibly naive at best. She owes Mr. Salazar and Mr. Jarvis, as well as the readers of this blog, a heartfelt apology for the incredibly inappropriate use of this photogragh. Have you no shame, Ms. Malkin?
There are so many problems with Ms. Malkin's atricle. She makes flat statements about President Obama and Departmental personnel (and its scientists -who are non-political) without citation or context, make statements of opinion as if they were fact (again with no citation or context). She doesn't even question the opinions of the Administration's non-scientific detractors. I certainly would like to see Ms. Malkin's scientific credentials to undertake a cogent analysis of the scientific issues at hand. This is typical for an anti-scientific critique of science. Not that the National Review, its authors or their financial supporters aren't unbiased, of course.
You, sir are either a fool or an Obama ally which is probably worse. The scientific proof is what it is. Facts are facts and you and your type are not able to deal with facts. This is why you try to change the nature of the discussion or, the discussion itself. Malkin needs no credentials to report what Federal Judges find. Malkin need not have a PhD to find the rampant corruption in this administration. Obama and his minions announce their every move and broadcast their motives if you will just turn off your glossy-eyed idolation and listen.
Until this administration I was completely apolitical - could care less. In my mind, all politicians are crooks however this guy - wow! Whole new level. On the surface, the distruction of our economy/military/manufacturing/energy generation seem to be his goals. No, Mr. Beltran - I did not blame Obama for our economic crisis to begin with but he has reveled in making it worse. I am not advocating any candidate, I think they are all extremely weak but, I will vote to remove the current occupant of 1600, whomever that may be.
My credentials are not eco-science either, I'm only a simple PE trying to eeke out a living but - I can read. Try it sometime.
There are so many problems with your comment. You make flat statements about Mrs. Malkins article without citation or context. You make statements of opinion as if they were fact. You don't even question the opinions of the Administration's quasi-scientists and the changing of reports by politically appointed cabinet members, for which these people were publicly charged. You neglect the findings of the court and yet call those scientist's opinions upon which the court based its ruling "non-scientific detractors".
I would like to see your scientific and political credentials to undertake a cogent analysis of Ms. Malkins article.
Yours is a typical comment generated by a reading comprehension impaired (she didn't critique the science, other scientists did) Leftist, who believes that humans are nothing but a pestilence upon the earth and should be reduced to a few enlightened souls such as yourself.
And, of course, Obama, his cabinet members and the environmental groups ARE biased. Anytime you combine science with a political ideology, science comes out the loser. And that is a fact.
So Ms Malkin makes "flat statements against President Obama and Departmental personnel (and its scientists - who are nonpolitical) without citation or context..."?
You mean, for instance, when she notes; "While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences."?
Sounds pretty full of context & citation to me. And you would suggest that the Department's personnel (namely, its scientists) are nonpolitical? Can you even say that with a straight face?
As some of these comments demonstrate, the so-called enviro-extremists actually dominate American viewpoints on this matter and no amount of scientific reason will ever make them waiver. The real culprits are worshipped by our brainwashed population and one dare not suggest that dominating those culprits is the beloved Sierra Club, the true evil behind these catastrophes.
Take Obama’s head of the National Park Service — please. While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences. Extensive information about Jarvis’s alleged role in cooking data about a California oyster farm’s impact on harbor seals at Point Reyes was withheld during the 2009 nomination process. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has ignored complaints and follow-up from both Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican senators James Inhofe and David Vitter.
