Tag Archives: political parties

The Obama Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

Peabody Energy Corp on Wednesday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from its creditors just weeks after warning that it could do so, the latest in a string of bankruptcies that have ricocheted through the US coal-mining industry.

The move by St Louis-based Peabody, the largest US coal mining company, follows on the heels of similar moves by Arch Coal Inc, Alpha Natural Resources, Inc, Patriot Coal Corp and Walter Energy, Inc.

Certainly, Peabody’s debt and competing energy sources have weighed, as has reduced steel production along with the Obama Recovery’s drag on our economy.  However, “environmental” regulations, designed by President Barack Obama to destroy the industry have contributed both to the reduction in steel production and to Peabody’s reduced ability to function.

The destruction of an industry.  Something only a Progressive could be proud of.  And something Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly that she will continue—in spades.

Is This Person a Fit Leader?

Posted on by
Reply

Some of you may have heard about the little to-do involving New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and a crack about CP time, which of course means Cautious Politician time.  The thing is textbook much ado about nothing, but that just emphasizes the failure of Clinton’s response to the flap:

Well, look, it was Mayor de Blasio’s skit.  He has addressed it, and I will really defer to him because it is something that he’s already talked about.

Yeah, just cut and run.  Do we really need such a one in the White House?

Pseudo-Science and Democrat Suppression of Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys General from California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington State, and the US Virgin Islands are banding together to push their witch hunt against science that refutes their lucrative climatista industry.  Now they’re planning on criminal and civil charges against companies that impudently disagree with the Party Line, cynically likening their case to the

Justice Department’s landmark case against “Big Tobacco[.]”

The truth of their cynicism, though, is exposed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey:

Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be held accountable.  That’s why we have joined in investigating ExxonMobil[.]

Healey’s own words demonstrate that these Democrats already have determined the outcome; they’re just after carefully selected data to support her claim.  This isn’t an investigation; it’s a dishonest witch hunt, designed to protect Democrat votes and crony pseudo-science funding streams.

Full stop.

Do Your Own Work

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, per a 1996 law passed by Congress, the CDC is barred from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”  Now, some 100 or more medical organizations want Congress to lift this ban, so they can research “gun violence.”  The letter they’ve written to four Congressional committees making this request can be seen here, and it’s signed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among those 100+.

These groups admit that the ban on using CDC funding to conduct this research does not ban the research, but they claim that the lack of government funding amounts to such a ban.

No.  This is just cynicism: if these guys actually thought the research they propose had any value, they’d go ahead and do it.  They’re just demanding OPM so they don’t have to make the hard choices of priority setting.

Elections have consequences.

Hillary Clinton’s Immunity?

Posted on by
Reply

Fox Business News‘ Julia Limitone thinks Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will talk to the FBI “within days.”  In fact, she’ll apparently be talking directly with FBI Director James Comey.  Here’s the money quote from Limitone’s piece, though:

While a proffer agreement will protect what Clinton says during the meeting from being used in a court of law, [former federal prosecutor-turned-criminal defense attorney, Arthur] Aidala noted it can be used against her for leads.

Just how far does this proffer agreement extend?  How immune to prosecution is Comey making his hopefully future capo di tutt’i capi?