Search

Mouser's View

Looking to be offended? You’ve come to the right place.

Category

Charities

Get real, Sierra Club

[This originally ran last Aug. 1, hence the dated reference to would-be Queen Hillary.]

I’d rather nap than watch a political speech by anybody, but the airwaves were filled with Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. She mouthed the usual stale liberal bromides, among them “clean energy.”

Tom Gantert, writing at Michigan Capitol Confidential, did some digging and found out the Sierra Club opposes or is trying to severely restrict sources producing 91% of that state’s power. In other words, the Sierra Club wants you to hug trees while you freeze to death on the Upper Peninsula. (In Detroit, you’d be mercifully shot before frostbite set in.)

The Sierra Club, of course, realized it was caught red-handed and wouldn’t comment, but Mr. Gantert found the evidence on the organization’s website, which starts out nobly, “We have a vision of a world powered by clean energy, where dirty and dangerous fossil fuels are a thing of the past and everyone can enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to renewable energy resources.”

He went on to cite the page that calls natural gas “dirty, dangerous, and run amok.” The Sierra Club has championed shutting down coal plants; don’t ding them for that, they are true believers.

The puzzling thing is the unequivocal opposition to nuclear plants, which provide almost a third of Michigan’s energy. The Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, called nuclear power “dangerous” in The Wall Street Journal. But why? Because Fukushima, where a design flaw contributed heavily? Because Chernobyl? Because Homer Simpson? Because “The China Syndrome,” which turned out to be more about TV news than nuclear energy?

For fairness and balance, we present rebuttal from the flack for the Nuclear Energy Institute, also from the article: “After more than 60 years of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including over 3,900 reactor-years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation. Studies by the National Cancer Institute and The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation show that U.S. nuclear power plants effectively protect the public’s health and safety. Nuclear plants also are safe for workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast food restaurant, a grocery store or in real estate.”

Environmental wackos never want to face facts or reality. BTW, keep those tax-deductible donations coming.

Get real, Sierra Club

I’d rather nap than watch a political speech by anybody, but the airwaves were filled with Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. She mouthed the usual stale liberal bromides, among them “clean energy.”

Tom Gantert, writing at Michigan Capitol Confidential, did some digging and found out the Sierra Club opposes or is trying to severely restrict sources producing 91% of that state’s power. In other words, the Sierra Club wants you to hug trees while you freeze to death on the Upper Peninsula. (In Detroit, you’d be mercifully shot before frostbite set in.)

The Sierra Club, of course, realized it was caught red-handed and wouldn’t comment, but Mr. Gantert found the evidence on the organization’s website, which starts out nobly, “We have a vision of a world powered by clean energy, where dirty and dangerous fossil fuels are a thing of the past and everyone can enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to renewable energy resources.”

He went on to cite the page that calls natural gas “dirty, dangerous, and run amok.” The Sierra Club has championed shutting down coal plants; don’t ding them for that, they are true believers.

The puzzling thing is the unequivocal opposition to nuclear plants, which provide almost a third of Michigan’s energy. The Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, called nuclear power “dangerous” in The Wall Street Journal. But why? Because Fukushima, where a design flaw contributed heavily? Because Chernobyl? Because Homer Simpson? Because “The China Syndrome,” which turned out to be more about TV news than nuclear energy?

For fairness and balance, we present rebuttal from the flack for the Nuclear Energy Institute, also from the article: “After more than 60 years of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including over 3,900 reactor-years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation. Studies by the National Cancer Institute and The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation show that U.S. nuclear power plants effectively protect the public’s health and safety. Nuclear plants also are safe for workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast food restaurant, a grocery store or in real estate.”

Environmental wackos never want to face facts or reality. BTW, keep those tax-deductible donations coming.

More dirt on the Clintons

There is fresh news about one of America’s royal families. As you read it, imagine how the media would react if the other royal family were involved. From The Washington Free Beacon:

“The Wall Street analyst who uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008 claims the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has a number of irregularities in its tax records and could be violating state laws. Charles Ortel … said he has spent the past 15 months digging into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures. That includes records from the foundation’s many offshoots – including the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative – as well as its foreign subsidiaries.

“According to Ortel’s reports, the contribution disclosures from the Clinton Foundation don’t match up with individual donors’ records. He also argued that the foundation is not in compliance with some state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules.”

Mr. Ortel is blowing the whistle on this “charity fraud” and will be dribbling out his findings at his website, charlesortel.com. His track record of dissecting financial dealings is excellent. After a London newspaper published his information about GE (U.S. outlets showed no interest), the company unexpectedly missed its earnings target and the stock eventually crashed. He did much the same thing to insurer AIG.

But we all know his latest project will get little or no traction in media outlets, which have always treated the Clintons as above reproach and aren’t they such cute do-gooders and couldn’t you just eat them up?

Final word from a cynical orange cat: Maybe this isn’t news after all. I’d be shocked if anything involving the thoroughly corrupt Clintons was on the up-and-up.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: