Category Archives: Legal

Climate bill DOA

Help! My climate bill has fallen at it won't get up!

Yet another Democrat/Harry Reid/Obama fail, but this time it’s a good one. The climate bill has died, at least for now, as Harry Reid has pushed it off the Senate schedule until September. He obviously couldn’t even get enough support from his own party to ram this through ala Obamacare. I guess sneaky midnight Sunday votes wouldn’t have helped get this one through.

This bill wasn’t very well thought out, was rushed in a kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the BP Gulf oil spill and appeared to be a desperate attempt to pass some kind of climate related bill to pacify their “green” voters since cap & trade kicked the bucket..

Harry’s blaming this on big oil, but you know what? Many “green” groups were unhappy with it, too. It seems they felt it was basically too little too late for them to support it.

Probably best it goes away because it’s really an abortion to both sides of the fence. This is what happens when things get rushed through and they’re not well thought out.

Suggestion – get together next year and come up with a bi-partisan bill that works, or better yet, don’t come up with one at all and watch the carbon traders butts pucker up.

Comments Off on Climate bill DOA

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Gulf Oil Spill, Legal, Obama, Politics

Audi’s Green Police Superbowl commerical comes true

Think the above Superbowl commercial from Audi about the green police was just the result of an overactive imagination? Think again because you’re wrong.

I laughed when I first saw it during the Superbowl, but perhaps it’s not really so funny.  I  just got done watching Dateline and it seems we indeed have real green police running around New York City. Yes, they wear green uniforms and carry guns. Another nail in the George Orwell 1984 coffin. Below is a video of them so you can see for yourself.

They can cite and arrest eco criminals.  Truck smoking too much? Ticket! Illegal fish? Ticket? Auto shop leaking anti-freeze? Ticket! Give them shit? Arrest!

Their official title is New York State Police Environmental Conservation Officers, but you have to laugh at the initials, ECO, thus the ECO Cops term. Tricky and scary at the same time.

Now I’m not for polluting or poaching, but I really would like to know why they need full police powers to operate? Seems like every time you turn around the government is adding more cops for things.

You can thank Obamcare for the thousands of armed IRS Agents who will be running around making sure you paid your Obmacare penalty.

The Army wants to create a “Stabilization Police Force” who could deploy domestically.  Is this not why we have the National Guard? Now we need the Army running around with emergency police powers within the borders of the United States? Sounds blatantly unconstitutional to me.

Obama has even touted having a “civilian national security force, ” whatever the hell that is. Are we going to have Obama “Brown-Shirts” running about arresting those who don’t kowtow to the communist way of thinking?

This seems to be a dangerous trend. As I’ve noted, the EU is even considering making it a criminal act to be a “climate skeptic.”

Smells like some government officials want the power to crack the whip on us citizens whenever and for whatever they feel like.  Right now the only thing between us and them is the Constitution. They want to trash it and ignore it. We should be extremely careful about who we vote for in the next election or we may find ourselves in the position Joseph Stalin would like. Old Staling had some interesting quotes, such as…..

Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.

Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

I wonder if comrade Obama and his cronies read these every night before bedtime?

I’ll predict that perhaps the next bunch in government who want to carry guns and nightsticks will be the EPA. I’m sure they’d love to run around arresting skeptics, AKA those of us who “pollute” the idea of anthropogenic global warming and don’t like the Federal Government’s continuous power grab and carbon tax attempts.

More CO2 Insanity mixed in with some good old fashioned insanity.

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Legal, Obama, Truth Stranger than Fiction

“Sex Poodle” Investigtion Dropped

Al “Sex Poodle” Gore must be very relieved that the investigation of his alleged attempted “humpty-dumpty” with a local masseuse has been dropped due to insufficient evident.

Al was accused of trying to get fresh with her way back in 2006. Perhaps that global warming in his pants just got too hot?

There’s other accusations floating around, we’ll have to wait and see what goes on with those.

Until then, Al, I’d suggest that next time you call a masseuse you might consider applying an ice pack to your crotch to cool that global warming off before she arrives.

If you want to read all the “Gore”y details the Source: Washington Post

Comments Off on “Sex Poodle” Investigtion Dropped

Filed under Comedy Relief, Global Warming, Legal

Is the “CLEAR” bill really transparent?

I picked up these little tidbits snooping around this afternoon about the CLEAR bill and it appears to me that it’s another case of the government not being as “transparent” as advertised by Obama. I’m sure you will remember President Obama’s promise that “”Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” Obama said.” Well, that was good for a laugh anyway.

I can’t say I remember seeing much “transparency” so far, and here we have yet another instance of something going on that is not very “transparent” or very “CLEAR.” “Rule of law?” Just look at how well our immigration laws are “enforced” and you should get an ides of what I am referring to.

Below are some snippets from the CBO regarding this bill.  You can read the whole letter here (PDF).

CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $20.5 billion over the 2011-2020 period and would increase revenues by $22.2 billion over the same period. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $20.5 billion over the 2011-2020 period and would increase revenues by $22.2 billion over the same period.

In total, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3534 would reduce future deficits by $5.3 billion over the 2011-2015 period and $1.7 billion over the 2011-2020 period (see enclosed table).

OK, it would appear based upon this report that this will actually reduce the deficit, i.e., it’s not going to cost the tax-payers one cent and will in fact have the net effect of reducing the deficit by a combined $7 billion through 2020. Well, that’s nice, but someone’s got to pay for all this, if the tax-payers aren’t then who is? You got that right, the tax-payers, they’ll just get screwed by an indirect method.

For starters it appears it will possibly wipe-out the uranium mining business in the United States. From Mine Web we get this.

Speaking on behalf of the National Mining Association, Uranium One Americas Executive Vice President warned the House Natural Resources Committee Thursday the proposed energy and aquatic legislation will mean the end of domestic uranium mining and exploration, and illegally seize current uranium mining claims.

Well that’s not going to be very good for business.  It’s going to kill jobs and illegally seize claims. It will shift the profits to other uranium producing countries like Canada, Australia, South Africa and a host of others. Considering the importance of this mineral to the military, one would have to question why anyone would want to make the US dependent upon foreign sources.

There seems to be other motivation.  As noted in the quote this will “illegally seize current uranium mining claims.” So what is the reasoning behind that? Cathy Carlson of NGO Earthworks is quoted as saying.

“We hope that by moving uranium to a leasing system, only public lands that are truly suitable for uranium mining will be leased, while Native American communities and sacred sites and National Forests around the Grand Canyon National Park will be protected from further uranium development,” she added.

See what we have here is more telling.  We have NGO Earthworks approval of this bill because it’s going to lock up a lot of federal land from mining operations, which it appears they don’t like very much. From what I see of the Obama Administration there may never be any “public lands that are truly suitable for uranium mining.” I have to question if protecting Native American communities is fancy talk for another way for the administration to transfer wealth.  I could envision them charging a uranium mine up the wazoo for permission to mine on a reservation.

If they do manage to find any land that is “truly suitable” they will now be able to charge royalties to the uranium mines ala the gas and oil industry. That sounds good on the face of it, too, doesn’t it? But, think about it.  We compete against other uranium mining countries with less environmental regulations and lower labor costs than we have.  If the government charges royalties, then the uranium that gets mined in the US is probably going to be overpriced. If no one buys it then it’s rather obvious that the uranium mines will falter and disappear taking jobs with them.

That is what I feel is the real onus of this section of this bill. The ecotards want to effectively ban uranium mining on public lands, just like they want to lock up public lands with more wilderness areas, more national monuments and more national parks. They could care less about putting people out of work and causing more trade deficits. How much more is that going to cost the tax-payers when we get to foot the bill for all the unemployment checks and welfare checks for unemployed miners?  If they close up mines, this will also trickle down to local business who sell mining equipment, food, trucks, cars, houses, etc.  No miners = no money = no business = more people collecting unemployment checks.

So what else will this bill that’s supposed to be regulating off-shore oil drilling accomplish? Per the Republican Natural Resources Committee here is some more this bill will “accomplish.”

The CLEAR Act is being sold as a response to the Gulf oil spill crisis, yet the bill itself stretches far beyond addressing this tragedy to include page after page of provisions that are unrelated to the oil spill, will kill American jobs, and are premature by acting before Congress has the full facts from the numerous ongoing investigations into the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill.

So, we have a bill about one thing that’s mysteriously morphed into a bill to control all kinds of things not related and moreover the Democrats appear to be in another rush to push this through before anyone wakes up. Some transparency. So what else do the Republicans note about it?

With this bill, Democrats are exploiting the Gulf oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to push through provisions that are unrelated to the spill response or reforms to offshore drilling. The latest version of the CLEAR Act:

Imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes for onshore natural gas and oil production. It fundamentally changes leasing onshore by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which affects not just leasing for natural gas and oil, but also for renewable energy including wind and solar. Forest Service and BLM leasing are shoved into the three new agencies that are replacing the former Minerals Management Service (MMS).

–     Creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two programs that have nothing to do with the oil spill (the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund). In the version of the bill headed to the House floor, Democrats added brand new language that expressly allows this $30 billion to be earmarked by the Appropriations Committee.

–     Raises taxes by over $22 billion in ten years – with the taxes eventually climbing to nearly $3 billion per year. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families and businesses, hurt domestic jobs, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. This tax only applies to U.S. oil and gas production on federal leases – giving an advantage to foreign oil and hurting American energy jobs.

–     Requires the federal takeover of state authority to permit in state waters, which reverses sixty years of precedent. The mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the federal government are being used as justification to expand federal control by seizing management from the states.

–     Allows 10% of all offshore revenues – an amount possibly as high as $500 million per year – to be spent on a new fund controlled by the Interior Secretary to issue ocean research grants (ORCA fund). There is no requirement that the fund is used for the Gulf region or anything related to oil spills or offshore drilling. These funds can be earmarked.

–     Establishes “marine spatial planning” regulatory authority – which allows for ocean zoning that could lead to restrictions on fishing, energy production and even onshore activities such as farming. This vague new regulatory authority could cost fishing jobs, energy jobs, manufacturing jobs, farming jobs, and many more jobs that may impact waterways that drain into the ocean.

The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate independent producers from operating offshore if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight, “by 2020 an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in federal, state, and local taxes from the Gulf region over 10 years.”

Democrat leaders also deleted a provision adopted without objection in the House Natural Resources Committee just two weeks ago to establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the oil spill – a provision that has also passed a Senate Committee in a bipartisan vote.

See what we get? Transparency? No. We get more taxes, fewer jobs, fewer tax-payers, we’re creating more government bureaucracies that in turn will cost even more money, we’re giving more authority to non-elected officials to take their little fiefdoms and do as they please with little or no recourse for the voters, we’re skewing the oil business in favor of non-US companies, probably reducing the amount of oil that US owned companies can produce, which at the same time creates more dependency on foreign oil, the federal government will be taking more authority away from states.  Talk about a mess, this is it.

The last one I find particularly interesting because what it will do is skew the Gulf oil spill investigation. You won’t have an investigation by a committee with anyone on it who’s in the oil industry and who may actually have a clue about what happened. You will have a committee with the investigative “deck” stacked with “jokers” from the environmental movement, who no doubt will do everything in their power to skew things to try to justify a complete ban on off-shore oil drilling. They also can CYA the President and the people at the EPA.  Per Rep. Doc Hastings (R) Washington…..

“By deleting the bipartisan, independent oil spill commission that’s received bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees, Democrats have shown they are more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.  Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.  There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs,” Hastings said.

You can bet that they probably possess the “technical expertise” to cover things up, skew facts, ignore reality, CYA Obama, be obtuse,  and shift blame towards any direction as long as it’s not pointing at the White House. So who do we have to thank for eliminating this provision?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stripped out authorization for an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.

Yes, good old Nancy Pelosi, that’s who has single-handily covered Obama’s ass on this. That’s what I call real “transparency.”

Just to add to it, on another note, there is more “transparency” coming out of the Obama Administration.  The SEC doesn’t have to respond to Freedom of Information Act Request anymore.  Still more “transparency” from the Obama Administration.

Think cap & trade and carbon taxes are kaput? Think again. What do you think the tax on energy is in this bill? Why it’s a concealed carbon tax, that’s what. How “transparent” can they get in Congress?

This is more CO2 Insanity at it’s best, right in the nation’s capitol. Better hang on to your gas cap.

Sources: CBO, Mine Web, Republican Natural Resources Committee

Comments Off on Is the “CLEAR” bill really transparent?

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Gulf Oil Spill, Legal, Obama, Politics, pollution

BP: “Plug the damn piehole!”

From Insaneminds we get the following article.

Alleged BP Contract to Silence Scientists

Obama: “Plug the damn hole!”                                          BP: Plug the damn pie-hole!”

Seems BP just isn’t content with its semi-successfull plugging of the hole at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, they are alleged to now want to plug scientist’s pie holes in what appears to be an effort to prevent scientist from testifying against them in the 300 or so lawsuits they currently are facing over the Gulf oil spill.

From the Telegraph we get this.

Researchers hired by the oil giant were reportedly asked to sign “restrictive” contracts for work designed to protect the company from more than 300 lawsuits in the wake of the slick.

It was claimed that contained within the contracts were clauses restricting scientists from publishing any academic research undertaken for the oil giant, sharing them with other researchers or even talking about them for as long as three years.

Prof Cary Nelson, the head of the American Association of Professors, accused the oil giant of making “hugely destructive” decisions.

Nice, first we get BP-Iwantmylifebackgate,then BP-Sailboatgate,  BP Photoshopgate, then BP-Lockerbiebombergate, now we get BP-Silencegate. It appears we’re going to have BP-Trustfundgate next, as I see allegations of them trying to slow the process down to give the people they’ve put out of work assistance.

Of course with Kenneth Feinberg running the trust find it certainly sounds possible. He doesn’t appear to have the cojones to stand up to Wall Street, so I have to wonder if BP is going to make him their sissy-boy, or perhaps already have done so.

Do you think anyone in charge at BP ever took an ethics class in college? I have to ask. Seems to fit what’s going on, it’s like they’re clueless about doing the right thing. They’re making Richard Nixon look like the epitome of honesty.

If you want to see the alleged contract for yourself, it’s here (PDF) at the BBC website.  They even highlighted the offending parts in yellow.

BP evidently doesn’t just want to silence individual scientists, per the below they want to silence whole departments at colleges.

American newspaper reports also claimed that BP attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at southern US university.

Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, who was offered one of the contracts, said BP wanted his whole department.

He said that after he stipulated that his team would have complete academic freedom he never heard from BP’s lawyers again.

That certainly makes for a good case that BP wasn’t THAT interested in securing their services.  BP, of course, is claiming they are innocent as the pure-driven snow.

But New Orleans environmental lawyer Joel Waltzer looked over the contract and said BP’s statement did not match up.

“They’re the ones who control the process. They’re depriving the public of the data and the transparency that we all deserve.”

We have a Professor Mendelsson who would work for them for his regular hourly fee.  He has to have the quote of the year below.

“Good scientists, they’re going to be giving their opinions based on the facts and they are not going to bias their opinions. What’s most important is credibility.”

Too bad the IPCC doesn’t hire this guy to head up their next report.  I think I might trust what he said. Basing opinions on the facts? What a novel idea that would be at certain institutions of the global warming persuasion.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this as I feel it certainly warrants more investigation.

Insane Minds indeed!

Sources: TelegraphBBCWikipedia

1 Comment

Filed under Financial, Gulf Oil Spill, Legal, pollution

Update to ‘Dissent and you may go to jail’

Well that didn’t take long, we already have some answers courtesy of Cnet.  They’re on top of it today to say the least. From them we get this update titled “Bomb making tips, hit list behind Blogetery Closure.” It seems I was on the money preferring the terrorist theory.  I’m very happy it’s not a conspiracy theory. But I’m sure there will be those who will think this is just so much BS from the government propaganda machine and is only a false story to take the heat off the real reason Blogetery had their plug yanked in such a hurry. Sorry, based on what I see I’m not going there.

What was going on with this server is chilling to say the least, I’m going with the Cnet story and I have to give kudos to the government for stopping it. We do not need terrorists a-holes causing problems in the United States.

The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of Burst.net, Blogetery’s Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery’s servers, Joe Marr, chief technology officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by Al Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.

I’m also happy that per the Cnet article that this did go though legal channels and wasn’t some bureaucrat issuing the edict to pull the plug.

Many speculated that the FBI was using the Patriot Act to silence bloggers. But Marr emphasized that the FBI has never ordered Burst.net to stop service to any site it hosts without a court order and that the vast majority of Burst.net’s communication with the federal government has involved agents serving warrants related to terrorist or child porn investigations.

“They have to go through the legal system,” Marr said. “A judge has to issue an order.”

Seems the people wondering about child pornography were also on the correct side about what happened. Good riddance to the terrorists and the child porn purveyors.

Regarding the actual pulling of the plug, this was not a requirement, but happened due to a misunderstanding according to the article.

Marr said the FBI contacted Burst.net and sent a Voluntary Emergency Disclosure of Information request. The letter said terrorist material, which presented a threat to American lives, was found on a server hosted by Burst.net and asked for specific information about the people involved.

In the FBI’s letter, the agency included a clause that says Web hosts and Internet service providers may voluntarily elect to shut down the sites of customers involved in these kinds of situations. The Burst.net employee who handled the request erroneously believed that the FBI would want to seize the customers’ server and thus the employee cut off service to Blogetery. Marr said the FBI, however, never asked for the server.

I don’t think you can blame Burst.net for shutting the server off.  Under the circumstances I’d say they were being prudent and like the man says below……..

Marr said that regardless of the mix-up, Blogetery’s service was terminated because bomb-making tips and a “hit list” are an obvious and absolute violation of its terms of service.

I can’t fault that logic either.

A source with knowledge of the investigation said that the material allegedly found on Blogetery’s server is connected to an online magazine called “Inspire,” which debuted recently. Numerous news outlets reported over the past weekend, “Inspire” is designed to help recruit new members to Al Qaeda and is edited by Samir Khan, a 24-year-old North Carolina man who moved to Yemen last October. According to Fox News, (this link has a lot of information about this a-hole with the terrorist website that’s caused us all these problems) the title of one article was “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

As you’re aware from the first article about this I was affected, too. I’m all for free speech, 1st Amendment rights and all that, I don’t have problems with most of what’s on the internet as it is like: if you don’t like porno flicks, right-wing, left-wing, guns, cars, boats, planes, cooking, or any of the myriad of topics on the internet, then you don’t have to go to the offending site and look at it, you can vote with your mouse.  I do draw the line at child port and terrorist activities.  So thanks FBI, thanks Burst.net.

I’m sure many  of us who had posts on Blogetery would like to be in a locked room with Samir with a Louisville Slugger, but that’s not going to happen wish as we may.

I do have one simple request of Burst.net.  Can we please….puhleeeeeeze……..pretty please with a cherry on top, get that server (absent the bad stuff and after the FBI is done with it) put back online at least long enough for us to all retrieve our blogs so we can post them elsewhere? It appears you’ve been doing the right thing so far, I hope you will continue to do the right thing and make it good for 70,000 plus bloggers.

I really don’t know what to say about whoever runs Blogetery.  I’m not real familiar with all the in’s and out’s of web-hosting, but I get the distinct impression from what I’ve read on some boards that Blogetery should have been on top of this.  Why they weren’t I can’t say.  Perhaps now that this has seen daylight we’ll get some answers from Blogetery, too.

Now if we can find out what happened at iPBFree.

Source:  Cnet

Comments Off on Update to ‘Dissent and you may go to jail’

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Government, Legal, Terrorist

Dissent and you may disappear or go to jail

There’s several things going on and it’s potentially not smelling very good. The part in the US could be legitimate or not, but the part with the EU definitely is very smelly and appears to be a blatant attempt to silence people who think anthropogenic climate change is a gigantic fraud.

If you put all this together and look at what’s going on it could give one the distinct impression that governments around the world aren’t liking the internet, they’re not liking bloggers who disagree with them, and they want to make sure everyone cow-tows to whatever they decide you should believe in, and no bitching allowed. Make too much noise and your website will disappear and we now even have the potential in the European Union that you may go to jail if you don’t go along with the party line.

As I noted earlier this week, I was offline for a while because I had my blog hosted at Blogetery, who mysteriously had an entire server confiscated by an as yet to be discovered government agency for an as yet to be discovered reason(s).  This took about 70,000+ blogs offline instantly. Fortunately I was one of the few who did backups and I have most of my site back up and running, save for the posts that did not get backed up prior to this happening.  No one knows if they will ever see any of their stuff again. From what I’ve been reading a lot of people never backed up their stuff. Henceforth, the mantra “back up daily” no matter where you have your blog or website hosted.  Stuff happens.

From what I can see the people at Blogetery supposedly don’t know what’s really going on other than what Burstnet was able to discuss, and the people at Burstnet, who hosted the Blogetery server can’t talk about it or they’ll end up in  jail.  No one’s talking.  Kind of sounds like the old communist U.S.S.R., speak up and go on a vacation to a gulag in “sunny” Siberia. But, it could be perfectly legitimate, too because all one can do is speculate at the current time.

The rumor mill has the server being shut off for various reasons such as kiddie porn, terrorist activity, software violations, illegal selling of credit card information, copyright violations (RIAA), and probably anything else ONE could imagine.

What’s leading me down the conspiracy trail is that I’d really like to know why this happened, but the fact no one knows or if they do know they can’t talk about it under penalty of law, is making me highly suspicious about what’s going on here?  Was this a real legitimate action? Or, could this perhaps be some way the government is going to silence dissenters under false pretext?

When you don’t know who did it, why they did it, and everyone’s been told to STFU or go to jail, you have to start wondering about conspiracies.   This is being bolstered by the fact that you can add to this the fact that iPBFree disappeared off the face of the planet just before Blogetery did. Talk about a potential conspiracy.  One is bad, two is worse.

While nosing around about Blogetry, I found out this happened earlier with another blogging site called iPBFree that went dark prior to Blogetery. Thousands more blogs go dark, no one’s talking, perhaps a mysterious government agency shut it down? I again see claims that no one can talk or they’ll be in jail. I also see another rumor about iPBFree that has them merely going bankrupt, no conspiracy, just bad finances. Regardless what the real truth is, you have more people who may never see their blog again and you have no real answers about why.

The next one is an entirely different thing, but could be tied in to governments trying to silence dissidents, too. It seem the European Union (EU) is now taking the game to a higher level.  We now we have a new potential for the EU to make being skeptical about climate change (global warming, bullshit, or whatever term you prefer to use) a criminal offense.  That’s right! Call Phil Jones a fraud, or question why various data being used is phony, and you may be wearing a striped suit and eating bread and water for breakfast, lunch and dinner. A ridiculous but very serious premise that may or may not happen, but it certainly makes me wonder what’s going on out there in Realityland.

I hope that Blogetery and iPBFree turn out to be something legitimate and that when the government is done with the servers that they’ll at least let everyone who had blogs get their information back. If this doesn’t happen it’s only going to raise further suspicions about this being a government effort to remove dissident blogs from the internet.

You can toss in Janet Napolitano’s effort to make sure no one at the TSA could read websites with anything controversial (read anti-government) that she backed off on as another nail in the conspiracy to shut off the dissidents coffin.

If the EU makes it criminal to doubt anthropogenic global warming it will be very telling and in my mind another reason to start wondering if there really is a conspiracy afoot. If they do this then what’s going to be next? Why anything they don’t like will be made into a criminal offense. If they get away with it, the US could use that as carte blanche to put similar laws in place that will have a very chilling effect upon the internet.

Hopefully, I’ll be putting up a post in the future that this was done for very legitimate reasons, that could not be disclosed for very legitimate reasons, and that Blogetery is back up and running, or, at least that it will be put up for period of time so people who didn’t have the chance, can back their blogs up and re-post them elsewhere. That would be the fair thing to do for the innocent.

My personal favorite theory about the US part (or should I say hope) is that there was something very terrorist going on those servers and that Homeland Security did this for legitimate reasons. From what I read they can avoid the courts and I’d assume they have the authority to make good on the threat to lock anyone up who divulges what’s going on as it’s a matter of national security.  That seems, in my mind, to fit the puzzle best. Hopefully time will tell and the answer will be that this was all legitimate.

Regarding the EU plan, I hope that it’s not the start of a large government effort to lock down the internet, or silence climate skeptics so they can go about their carbon trading schemes. Then throw in the IPCC wanting their scientists not to talk to the media.

Conspiracy or coincidence? You decide.

Sources: Prison Planet, Cnet, Watts Up with That? BNPI Hate the Media Climate Change Fraud

9 Comments

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Government, Legal, Politics

NASA Sued for Non-Response to FOIA

...and how many times did you deny FOIA requests Mr. NASA?

I got a “tweet” from Watts Up With That” this morning about NASA being sued per this article, which led to me reading their take on it, which linked to an article on The American Spectator by Chris Horner about it.  Here’s their take on it, my take on it, and some legal information from John O’Sullivan at the end.

CEI (The Competitive Enterprise Institute) is suing NASA because they’ve been requesting documents for about 3 years under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and NASA has been avoiding them like “warmers” avoid global cooling.

This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.

Seems there’s a lot going on at this agency that perhaps the general public is unaware of and the “warmers” either condone or look the other way about.  Based upon the information from the two source websites,  NASA  has been running a website, probably with your tax dollars, to surreptitiously try to back up their BS about anthropogenic global warming.  It’s called RealClimate.org, which is by the “warmers” for the “warmers” and of the “warmers.”  Evidently the people at GISS and NASA never watched Superman when they were kids and “truth, justice and the American way” are completely foreign to them.

In this process, if only thanks to pressure on NASA after a December 2009 news story about their games, we have already obtained important emails among 2,000 or so pages released. These include an admission to USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.

So whether the CRU claims were actually made up, as seems entirely plausible reading that crowd’s own nasty anti-scientific campaign in their own words, it is as good as made up, meaning non-existent, for any legal or scientific purpose. So we already know that two of the four supposed “independent temperature records” are down the drain. And they’re the only two subjected to anything resembling scrutiny.

Sounds like NASA is so full of it they actually had to start another site to get the general public to believe what they evidently can’t back up.  They’re hiding out about that, too.

Also along the way, in recent months we won on administrative appeal after NASA denied that documents created and held on NASA assets were really agency records, if editing and managing a third-party activist and advocacy site, RealClimate.org. NASA originally denied access to the records (which they are still withholding) on the grounds that taxpayer-funded scientists were actually moonlighting and so the documents were not really the government’s property.

I had to ask what are the implications of all of this.  As such I forwarded this to John O’Sullivan for his expert legal opinion on what’s actually going on beyond the obvious allegations that NASA is not only pumping out bald-faced lies, but actually is running a website with taxpayer funds to try to back the bald-faced lies up.  Mr. O’Sullivan sent me the following email.

John,

Great link-thanks. CEI are onto something here and if they have smart attorneys they will, at some point along the legal line, employ the doctrine of spoliation (i.e. file a motion for relief for NASA’s evidence destruction/withholding).

If CEI’s lawyers have a credible prima facie case indicating taxpayer funds were misappropriated into, for example, creating and maintaining the advocacy website, ‘Real Climate,’ then the burden of proof shifts to the respondents (ie.Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen et al.) to disprove CEI’s claims-unreasonably denying the FOIA claims for a 3-year period may, in itself, be sufficient to cost NASA the case.

The law requires that if during this process, NASA fails to furnish any subpoenaed documents relevant to the CEI’s case, because they may have become ‘lost’ or destroyed, then those persons (but more likely NASA) become liable, under the spoliation doctrine, to a motion for summary judgment or an adverse inference jury instruction.

In plain speak, under U.S. civil and criminal law, any party destroying or hiding key evidence is very likely to lose the case. The result will probably be that the CEI claims will be upheld. But will anyone go to jail? Unlikely.

Because, just as in the U.K, American FOIA laws may ultimately prove toothless. Such regulations are ostensibly enacted and enforced by the current representatives of the people (i.e. the govt) for the benefit of the people (or in reality, the government). So, in effect, the whole circus may well be spun out, stymied or down played long enough to spare the blushes of the incumbent ruling political party.

So that all that may result is some ‘smacked hands’ and a token level of disrepute for the institution (NASA). As we saw in Britain (with CRU) an incumbent pro-warmist government like the current administration is not going to willingly pursue prosecutions that may create setbacks for their cap and trade agenda.

The U.S. Establishment will hope it all blows over, especially with the backdrop of a compliant-almost myopic-mainstream media that won’t make a fuss,either. I’m sure that’s close to what these characters hold up their sleeve.

Regards,

John

As you can see Mr. O’Sullivan is very aware of the laws regarding this and that while it sounds good on the face of it, the reality of the situation is that perhaps a few people will get sent to their room for a time-out but that most likely no one is going to lose their job or do any jail time.  It’s real CO2 Insanity that those who appear to be promoting bald-faced lies using your tax dollars won’t have much, if anything happen to them.  I can hope that this gets enough publicity in the MSM to at least embarrass them good and perhaps get the global warming fraud out more in the public eye, but I’ll bet (like John O’Sullivan) that the MSM (main stream media) will continue to act as though they’re “co-conspirators,” and no one’s going to hear much, if anything from them.

Where’s Perry Mason when you need him?  What would they call this episode?  How about “The Night of the Missing Climate Change?”  Or, “The Case of the Inconvenient FOIA request?”

Source:  Watts Up With That?

Source: The American Spectator

Comments Off on NASA Sued for Non-Response to FOIA

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Financial, John O'Sullivan, Legal, Politics

Keystone Cops Question Everyone Who Requested Info from CRU!

He doesn't believe in Global Warming? Arrest that man!

This article from Telegraph.co.uk describes what sounds like an amazing piece of police work if I ever heard of one.

In the continuing quest to find out who hacked, stole or leaked the infamous e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that started “Climategate,” the police are now on what appears to be a “witch-hunt” and are running around questioning everyone who ever requested any information from them.

Already prominent climate change sceptics around the world have been questioned and members of staff at the university, but is has now emerged that ordinary members of the public who did nothing more than request information are also being targeted.

Sebastian Nokes, a businessman and climate change sceptic, wrote to a national newspaper to complain.

He said all he had done was request information on the CRU’s disclosure rules and he was questioned on his political and scientific beliefs.

Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory, who is leading the investigation, said his unit is looking into anyone who could give clues to who stole the emails and working with experts in “extremism”.

“As with any investigation we will interview anyone who may have information which is of relevance to the enquiry,” he said.

I suppose this will end up being a gigantic waste of tax-dollars.  I’m sure they’ll someday show up at the right person’s front door and get an immediate confession. They probably have a better chance of finding a Purple People Eater.

Source: Telegraph

Comments Off on Keystone Cops Question Everyone Who Requested Info from CRU!

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Legal, Stranger than Truth