Obama Scandals Go Beyond Taxes, Spying, Political Suppression and Gun Running: Environment Takes a Hit as Well
It seems that the Obama administration is not content to trash the rule of law and the ideal of equal treatment before the law with regards to the differing treatment of political groups vis-à-vis the tax code, it has also done the same thing with Freedom of Information Requests at the Environmental Protection Agency. Though the mainstream media is once again AWOL on the story, it seems that when environmental groups that support the Obama administration or push for more power for the EPA submit FOIA requests, their fees are waved 92 percent of the time. However when pro-environment conservative groups submit FOIA requests and fee waivers, their requests are rejected 81 percent of the time. Only the Obama administration could consider that equal treatment.
It’s been recognized by any who has bothered to look that the Obama administration, it (self-admittedly) treats traditional energy companies (oil, gas, coal, etc – in other words the reliable energy sources that create jobs and wealth) differently than green energy (primarily wind and solar – the unreliable sources of energy that create wealth for politically favored friends of the administration through enormous subsidies). The bias is clear but even I was surprised to learn it extended to breaking environmental laws, but it does. If and when an oil or coal company, during its operations, kill, harm or harass endangered species, their operations can be shut down for extended periods of time and they face huge fines. However, if a green energy company does the same thing, its evidently “no harm,” no foul. Taxpayers have spent millions of dollars helping the endangered California condor to recover, and set aside habitat for its protection – now, the Obama administration say, if you are building and operating wind turbines, it’s okay to kill them. It seems that the condors well-being counts for little against Obama’s green energy fetish.
And who is getting rich off of green energy?
Looks like political bias could be a problem in even more government entities and agencies during the Obama administration and other administrations at this rate. Brace for the fallout from the circus of scandals!
“the Obama administration, it (self-admittedly) treats traditional energy companies (oil, gas, coal, etc – in other words the reliable energy sources that create jobs and wealth) differently than green energy (primarily wind and solar – the unreliable sources of energy that create wealth for politically favored friends of the administration through enormous subsidies).”
– I’d like to think that this isn’t the nature of politics, but I fear that society has relegated itself to understand the corruption associated with the government.
If I was a Condor, I wouldn’t vote for the democratic replacement to Obama. Those wind turbines are dangerous!
No harm, no fowl?
I wish he would at least attempt to hide the fact that he’s favoring political allies! Would rather they assume I’m ignorant rather than uncaring.
Using government agencies as political sledgehammers? Never. I especially like it when guys like Eric Holder refuse to resign after Congress demands it. Should be telling when appointed officials supersede elected ones.
How are the wind turbines not in violation of the ESA? They have been on the list since 1967. Numerous animals on the ESA list have caused financial issues for energy companies. It is clear that the Obama administration is being bias towards wind energy.
There is a clear political agenda while some of it may come from an actual environmentally-conscious place. However, the politicization of this environmental debate is something that only scientific inquiry and objective education will able to debunk, exposing the truths and myths about these issues.
I don’t think you can blame the Obama administration for the rejection of conservative pro-environment groups FOIA requests. That is the strictly the EPA. While President Obama chose some of the officials in the EPA, he does not choose all of them, and without further evidence…this is really an unfounded claim.
Harry Truman famously said “The Buck Stops Here! The Obama administration says “The buck stops anywhere but here.”
President Obama is the least “responsible” President I can remember: Fast and Furious — (a rogue ATF office in Phoenix); Conservative Tax scandal (a rogue IRS office in Cincinnati); Black Panthers at the Polls in Philadelphia (Justice Department decision — but not Holder); EPA and FOIA (no bias here, ignore the man behind the curtain); Tapping reporter’s phones (Neither Obama nor Holder know anything about it); Obama: Mine will be the most transparent administration in history (more denied FOIA requests and more prosecutions for leaks than any administration every.
Private companies and even heads of private companies can and often are held responsible for the illegal or even just negligent acts of their employees. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, CEOs must sign a document holding them legally responsible (both civilly and criminally) for the accounting and financial data and documents produced by people far below their pay-grade. I just believe the President of the United States should be held to the same, if not an even higher, standard of responsibility.
Thing to consider is that the environment has been long ago effectively used for political gain and will continue to do so in the future, regardless of the party in power. This is how politics works and I hope that the public gets access to more objective studies on environmental matters in order to start questioning politicians instead of being told what to think.
Whether or not Obama is creating fair treatment based on pasted precedent of endangered species protection, should we be protecting all animals at the expense of the global environment…I mean according to scientific analysis about climate change species will die anyway with increased carbon emission acidifying our oceans and melting the ice-caps etc…
I’d like to see if the same (or similar) requests were submitted by two different groups. This would be a great way to find discrimination.
Jaden, your remark is very astute. One could argue that it is not a legitimate function of the
American government under its Constitutional charges and limitations to protect species at all. And even if it is within the federal government’s purview under its delegated powers, whether the private sector might protect species better than the government and, if not, whether the a different approach might produce better results. However, even if the federal government does have a legitimate role in protecting endangered species, it is certainly not one if its core functions like national defence, thus in a time of limited budgets, high unemployment and huge deficits and debt, it is fair to ask, how much should the government spend protecting species overall, how much for any one species and how do we decide. The NCPA has examined the legitimacy and the failures of the Endangered Species act over a number of years, for example:
http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/st303.pdf
http://environmentblog.ncpathinktank.org/failing-grade-for-the-endangered-species-act/
http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/ba276
http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pub/st282?pg=5
Regardless of the above, the point I was trying to make in the blog post concerned the Obama administration and its apparent disregard of the law when it doing so favors an industry or company the administration supports.