April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
As the Obama administration races to make reality his dream of ‘bankrupt[ing]’ coal and causing your ‘electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket’, they are also rushing to rebrand the effort by changing its face. The obvious wealthy, white and western environmentalist movement is getting another big bag of taxpayer money to give itself a makeover as a minority-rights movement.
The Examiner’s Tim Carney reports that “President Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson [is] sending $7 million of the taxpayers’ money to dozens of groups mounting academic and propaganda campaigns organized around that theme.”
This is a drop in the bucket whose larger objective is to bring in these groups as aid-dependent advocates of an agenda. The most repugnant aspect of this cynical ploy is that people of color are those hurt first and worst by this agenda, and most threatened by its global expansion.
UPDATE: A friend forwards this article. So let’s watch another devastatingly expensive, ineffective and eve counterproductive lack of green judgment unfold in New Yor’s schools. No doubt in the name of protecting minorities. Wait, minority children.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online