They Just Won’t give up

Another day, another “controversial” Trump nominee confirmed.

This time it’s Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA:

The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote.

The confirmation vote came after contentious hearings during which Democratic lawmakers questioned Pruitt over his ties to fossil fuel companies, his multiple legal challenges to EPA regulations and his public statements questioning the science behind climate change.

Senate Democrats boycotted a committee vote to move forward Pruitt’s nomination earlier this month and stretched debate before the full Senate into the early hours of Friday. On Thursday evening, some Democrats again called for Pruitt’s confirmation vote to be delayed after an Oklahoma judge ordered his office to turn over thousands of communications with fossil fuel companies to a watchdog group.

Make no mistake: This is a great pick, and the hysterical liberal campaign to discredit Pruitt was absolutely insane.

First, the notion that he shouldn’t be secretary because he sued the EPA. So what? Oftentimes Environmental Protection Agency policies have serious consequences for Americans. Pruitt’s efforts as Oklahoma Attorney General were aimed at restoring the state’s role in setting its own environmental policy.  Pruitt, and others recognize that regulations that apply to all states do not apply equally. States like West Virginia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma might be disproportionately harmed by sweeping environmental regulations favored by folks in California and New York. Indeed, even the most committed environmentalists acknowledge that centralized, Washington based regulation often fails to take into account the individual environmental challenges faced by the states. 

Second, the notion that he’s a “climate change” denier is absurd. More broadly, the term “climate change denier” needs to go. Acknowledging that global temperatures have shifted in one direction or another is something very few people can deny. What’s worth debating is what impact human activity has had on this, and what we might do to adapt or remedy it. But liberals aren’t interested in debate, they’re interested in shutting down the conversation and authorizing billions of dollars in programs for alternative energy and thousands of pages of business stifling regulations.

So what does Pruitt actually believe? As Daniel Payne at the Federalist notes, his beliefs are pretty tame:

Well, back in May, Pruitt co-wrote a column at National Review in which he noted, correctly, that “[the climate change debate] is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.” That’s it. That’s literally the only evidence they provide that Pruitt is a “climate change denialist.”

Pruitt’s failure to make common cause with global warming people who were telling us that a new ice age was upon us thirty years ago suggests he’s a critical thinker. A measured approach to problems isn’t dangerous, it’s rational. Rational is good. Right?

Well, not according to the mainstream media. Here’s how they’re framing it:


Thanks for the editorial on the Pruitt confirmation, @washingtonpost

— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 17, 2017

That’s not all. EPA employees, in a show of the rank politicization that infects the agency, have been calling senators and urging them to block Pruitt’s nomination.

We can see why. For years, the out of control agency’s priorities have been at odds with those of normal Americans. As every dire prediction about global warming has turned out to be totally false,

It’s safe to say that Pruitt will be quick to drain the swamp over there.

4 thoughts on “They Just Won’t give up”

  1. I am sooo happy that Pruitt is in! He’s an important one. The EPA has gone radically insane and is intentionally destroying farming, logging, energy and life for humans in general. Would you believe that in California the cattle farmers are forced to “capture” the cow farts? That’s a state EPA rule. Farmers are being kept from getting water to protect sardines. It all hearkens back to the UN’s agenda 21. What they call “sustainable” is code for a dictatorship of control and population management. In their list of UN-sustainable and therefore what must go, are things like roads and highways, private homes, farm animals etc. Pruitt can save us from this agenda of planned starvation and herding people into controllable areas. I know this sounds like conspiracy theory but it’s in black and white print among the UN’s papers. Pruitt is a voice of sanity.

  2. Jim,

    My political leanings would have me “deny” climate change. But, I have to admit, in the 1950’s we could find many places we could go out and skate (ponds, flooded parking lots, etc.). Now, let’s admit, not so much.

    Here in Lexington, Va, in the Maury River, at the edge of town, early in the 1900’s, they harvested blocks of ice from the river and stored them for sale. Now, no ice to harvest, let alone store.

    If the left were not so damned blood crazy about climate change, we could have discussions about particulates in the air in certain areas and determine solutions (scrubbers, controls, whatever), but NO, it has to be all or nothing. EVIL mankind destroying the planet.

    One notion I try to advance in discussions is what would the lefties do if only 1% (or even less) of climate change is due to the actions of mankind? What right would we have to try to change the destiny delivered to us by nature, planetary orbit, axis tilt, sun flare activity, moon gravitational pull, etc..). After all, we all know it’s not right to fool with mother nature, right?

    No one is having this theoretical/philosophical discussion. I guess it’s just so much more pleasing to condemn ourselves and fellow man as evil doers who need to be punished and managed by Libtards.

    1. You raise some interesting points Doug, but you are also correct that to the liberals, it has to be all or nothing, no compromise, no adult discussions. It’s simply their way or the highway. As as long as they maintain that attitude towards not just EPA issues, but education, foreign policy, fiscal matters, etc. they will simply have to be shouted down and overwhelmed.

Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim