Socialist energy czar

[Bill Bucko 0]

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480025,00.html :

Browner: Redder than Obama Knows

Thursday, January 15, 2009

By Steven Milloy

Incoming White House energy-environment czar Carol Browner was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International. While that revelation has been ignored by the mainstream media and blithely dismissed by her supporters, you may soon be paying the cost of Browner’s political beliefs in your electricity bill.

Socialist International is precisely what it sounds like -- a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause. Founded in 1951, its organizing document rails against capitalism, asserting that it “has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population … unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment … produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor … [and] resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation.…” Socialist International also asserts, “In some countries, powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism.” So Socialist International at least partly blames Adolph Hitler on capitalism.

According to its own principles, Socialist International favors the nationalization of industry, is skeptical of the benefits of economic growth and wants to establish a more “equitable international economic order.” In true Marxist form, it asserts that, “The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled -- as citizen, consumer or wage-earner -- to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.”

Author Steven Milloy is wrong on one point: in saying Obama doesn't know. How can you say that about a bastard who's surrounded himself with communists, socialists, terrorists, racists, and crooked politicians his entire life?

[Thales 0]

Author Steven Milloy is wrong on one point: in saying Obama doesn't know. How can you say that about a bastard who's surrounded himself with communists, socialists, terrorists, racists, and crooked politicians his entire life?

Conservatives continually make excuses like that for people, even when there is overwhelming evidence they do know these things. Hard to determine what their motivation is, but it is harmful not to make objective moral evaluations.

That makes two radical environmentalists Obama has appointed. One is his science advisor and now Carol Browner.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Author Steven Milloy is wrong on one point: in saying Obama doesn't know. How can you say that about a bastard who's surrounded himself with communists, socialists, terrorists, racists, and crooked politicians his entire life?

I believe he is referring to his "not the Bill Ayers I knew" shtick. Soon, he'll be saying that this woman from the Socialist International is "not the Carol Browner I knew."

[Thales 0]

Author Steven Milloy is wrong on one point: in saying Obama doesn't know. How can you say that about a bastard who's surrounded himself with communists, socialists, terrorists, racists, and crooked politicians his entire life?

I believe he is referring to his "not the Bill Ayers I knew" shtick. Soon, he'll be saying that this woman from the Socialist International is "not the Carol Browner I knew."

If that's the case, it's pretty funny and clever. However, conservatives do make excuses for liberals all of the time. Thinking a bit more on it, it's probably a result of the turn-the-other cheek appeasement point of view. Fall on thy sword and sacrifice thyself, brother.

[ewv 0]

Author Steven Milloy is wrong on one point: in saying Obama doesn't know. How can you say that about a bastard who's surrounded himself with communists, socialists, terrorists, racists, and crooked politicians his entire life?

Browner is a former Clintonista with a record that was documented long ago. Her actions as head of the Clinton-Gore EPA as a radical viro were decribed in Ron Arnold's book Undue Influence in 1999; see especially Browner's profle in pp. 208-219.

Browner was brought into the Clinton-Gore administration by Al Gore, for whom she had been Legislative Director for Gore from 1988 to 1991 when he was a Senator. At EPA she hired scores of her fellow radicals from major viro organizations like Friends of the Earth, Natural Reource Defense Council, and the Sierra Club to run the EPA. She gave millions of dollars to her cronies in the viro organizations through government grants and she politically collaborated with them while in office to further the viro agenda. Browner set up a new Office of Environmental Justice within EPA. Her agency illegally lobbied Congress under her instructions. She and her cronies rewrote EPA regulations, which have the force of law, bypassing Congress, to harass industry and property owners. That is all a base from which she will continue and increase the damage under Obama.

For details of Browner's background and her newly created viro position in the Obama administration see the book Undue Influence and the more recent descriptions of Browner in the Green Tracking Library.

A January 12,2009 article in the Washington Times, Obama climate czar has socialist ties, revealed Browner' overt socialism. Fox News also reported Obama Climate Czarina Was Member of Socialist Group's Environmental Commission on Jan. 15. But you can see from the above background that using the word "socialism" is the least of it; you don't have to make inferences from a label to see what she has done all her life and what she intends to do.

Obama of course knows very well who and what Browner is, just as he knew very well what his leftist terrorist and bomber cohort Bill Ayres is. Obama is not naive; he is in thick with the radical viros and the progressive Democrat establishment from the Clinton era and beyond. The ongoing PR claiming that the Clinton-Gore adminsitration and Obama's appointments are "moderate" is an orchestrated farce deliberately intended to mislead and to redefine the "center" to mean progressive leftism. They are ideologues who are sophisticated enough to know to hide what they are to keep people asleep. Those familiar with the backgrounds of these people are frightened of the dangerous, sophisticated ideologues being put into place in the Obama administration and the kind of "change" they really represent. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that most people know nothing about while the MSM tries to keep it that way.

[ewv 0]

The Wikipedia page on Browner has been "cleansed" of the controversy over her overt socialism. It now says, in the section on "political opinions":

Browner declared the George W. Bush administration "the worst environmental administration ever." Fox news has stated she was part of a socialist organization, and when Barack Obama selected her, her name was suddenly taken off that socialist website. However, there is no proof to substantiate this allegation.

The unacknowledged proof is the Green Tracking Library archive of the deleted Socialist International web page description of Browner as one of its Commissioners.

The Green Tracking Library also archived the previous Wikopedia page on Browner which had included:

Socialist International

Until January 2009, she was listed as one of fourteen leaders of Socialist International. The group calls for rich countries to shrink their economies in order to combat climate change. However, her name was removed from organization's website after Barack Obama appointed her to be his coordinator of energy and climate policy. [19]

19. Obama climate czar has socialist ties, The Washington Times, January 12, 2009

This and the citation for the Washington Times article were permanently removed from Wikopedia. The Wikopedia edit history is here. It also shows the removal of a citation to the Fox News report, claimed in the edit history to be "misleading".

The Obama "moderate" revisionists are hard at work supressing this along with Obama's close working collaboration with the terrorist bomber Bill Ayres who "only happened to live down the street".

[Capitalism Forever 0]

However, conservatives do make excuses for liberals all of the time. Thinking a bit more on it, it's probably a result of the turn-the-other cheek appeasement point of view. Fall on thy sword and sacrifice thyself, brother.

Agreed, on both points. Sometimes, even Ann Coulter is reluctant to condemn liberals "all the way," describing them as mentally disturbed etc. rather than pronouncing their ideology to be evil. (Although she's the least prone to show such Christian-inspired compassion, which is why I like her most among today's conservatives!)

[Capitalism Forever 0]

The Wikipedia page on Browner has been "cleansed" of the controversy over her overt socialism.

Thanks for posting that info. If someone ever asks me why I mistrust Wikipedia, I'll point them to your post.

[Carlos 0]

The Wikipedia page on Browner has been "cleansed" of the controversy over her overt socialism.

Thanks for posting that info. If someone ever asks me why I mistrust Wikipedia, I'll point them to your post.

It can be quite interesting to click "discussion" to see the hidden, furious keyboard wars that have been waged over the articles. Usually it's some good guy we would be sympathetic to, against the thousand nations of the persian empire hordes of viro, socialist punks.

Can we just stop the stupidity now?

Look people, she is a card carrying Socialist. You can use this little tool we like to call Google to confirm it. For those of you who don't know, you get on this thing called the internets, and you go to www.google.com. Once there you type in "Carol M. Browner socialist" and hit the search button.

When you see the listing from Socialist International, you'll click the link and her name won't be there. DO NOT come back to Wikipedia and provide that as proof she's not a Socialist. Instead go back to the google results and hit the Cached link. That will show you she was there but they scrubbed it when that fact became an embarrassment for the Obama camp.

Now can all you children who love to play revert war, knock it off and just put the information in her bio and get it over with?

Put it in a section called controversy -I don't care- somebody with some writing skills, do it properly and be done with it.

But can we please (for a change) act like grown ups? Please?

Response: I believe the current mentioning of the fact was somewhere between useless and completely biased, thus I removed it. If you want to edit the fact that she attended a conference, go ahead, but mind the bias. Whatever your personal belief, personal opinion doesn't belong in these articles. Save other peoples' time and write it neutrally first. Nepstad (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles always strive to be "NPOV" (non point of view, whatever that means) and somehow these punks can always invoke "POV" to get another person's writing removed. You can't call a terrorist a terrorist, because that is a "POV" word apparently. And incredibly here, even though it is a documented fact this woman's a socialist, it is still "POV" and can't be used!

Of course, it's the same thing to me when I hear environmentalists point to a record heat wave in Europe as global warming, and a "denier" points to growing ice in Antarctica, only to hear the GW advocate say "You are failing to distinguish large scale climate changes and local weather. The thickening of antarctic ice is simply a local weather phenomenon, and is unrelated to the global climate at large".

These are people who deal with reality in a non-objective way on principle, so nothing can be gained from entering into rational argument. Whatever reality is to them, it always is something that proves their point and destroys yours.

[ewv 0]

The Wikipedia page on Browner has been "cleansed" of the controversy over her overt socialism.

Thanks for posting that info. If someone ever asks me why I mistrust Wikipedia, I'll point them to your post.

The cleansing is still going on, as you can see in the continuing revision history. Her page is being finely tuned to spin like the typical MSM 'news' article on any viro or progressive topic, suppressing anything controversial while using euphemisms to promote what is left. If you want to learn about a topic from Wikopedia you have to go through the revision history to see what was suppressed.

[ewv 0]

These are people who deal with reality in a non-objective way on principle, so nothing can be gained from entering into rational argument. Whatever reality is to them, it always is something that proves their point and destroys yours.

It's called Orwellian propaganda.

[bborg 0]

The only thing I can say to myself to escape the frustration of this kind of revisionism is that if their mission succeeds and this country collapses under the weight of altruism, I'll either be dead or living in another country while these lunatics suffer from their own evil. Either way, I won't remain here to suffer with them.

[ewv 0]

The only thing I can say to myself to escape the frustration of this kind of revisionism is that if their mission succeeds and this country collapses under the weight of altruism, I'll either be dead or living in another country while these lunatics suffer from their own evil. Either way, I won't remain here to suffer with them.

The dishonest revisionist cleansing you are witnessing on that one Wikopedia page is only a microcosm of what goes on in the media daily to promote the viro and progressive agenda. The major difference is that most such organizations have no internal opposition to contend with and the rhetoric of their spin come so naturally to them that they don't even have to think about it; a few intellectuals dream up new slogans and sound bites to add to the vocabulary and the rest follow like sheep.

You don't have to wait for the whole country to collapse because they are already destroying people one at a time in a non-uniform distribution of attacks. It has become like fatal disease; you can only hope that your time isn't coming too soon before your normal life span is up. But where do you intend to go that is not even less civilized?

[Carlos 0]

Obama is making it a practice to appoint some of the worst that the scientific world has to offer for different positions of power.

John Holdren has been appointed to be the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

In nominating John Holdren to be director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy - the position known informally as White House science adviser - President-elect Barack Obama has enlisted an undisputed Big Name among academic environmentalists. Holdren is a physicist, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and author or coauthor of many papers and books.

He is also a doom-and-gloomer with a trail of erroneous apocalyptic forecasts dating back nearly 40 years - and a decided lack of tolerance for environmental opinions that conflict with his. The position of science adviser requires Senate confirmation. Holdren’s nomination is likely to sail through, but conscientious senators might wish to ask him some questions. Here are eight:

1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: “If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971, the two of you were adamant that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?

2. You have advocated the “long-term desirability of zero population growth” for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as “too many” and warned that “280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” The US population today is 304 million. Are there too many Americans?

3. You opposed the Reagan administration’s military buildup in the 1980s for fear it might “increase the belligerency of the Soviet government.” You pooh-poohed any notion that “the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own.” But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan’s defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?

4. You argued that “a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States” in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the “de-development” of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” Which is it?

5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn’t policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?

6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?

7. “Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia,” you wrote in 1977. “The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable.” If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?

8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are “dangerous,” that those who hold them “infest” the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is “a menace.” You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg’s notable 2001 book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” - an attack the Economist described as “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.” In light of President-elect Obama’s insistence that “promoting science” means “protecting free and open inquiry,” will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you? See story here.

From: http://icecap.us/

[Carlos 0]

Obama has also appointed Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu

Many people, some Objectivists included, believe the Republican Right to be the enemies of modern science and the Left to be it's friend. The Left doesn't stand for an allegiance to science, but to pretension and obedience to intellectual authority. Obama will appoint the famous names of science to powerful positions under the idea that the sheer might of their pedigree will awe us into submission to their rulings.

Don't let the Richard Dawkins of the world fool you: The Left are not the last defenders of science, they are it's exploiters.

[Carlos 0]

Obama has also appointed Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu

Many people, some Objectivists included, believe the Republican Right to be the enemies of modern science and the Left to be it's friend. The Left doesn't stand for an allegiance to science, but to pretension and obedience to intellectual authority. Obama will appoint the famous names of science to powerful positions under the idea that the sheer might of their pedigree will awe us into submission to their rulings.

Don't let the Richard Dawkins of the world fool you: The Left are not the last defenders of science, they are it's exploiters.

Steven Chu is quoted for saying this:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe...

"Coal is my worst nightmare":

Get ready for a new administration of Floyd Ferris's and Robert Stadlers!

[ewv 0]

Steven Chu is quoted for saying this:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe...

"Coal is my worst nightmare":

Get ready for a new administration of Floyd Ferris's and Robert Stadlers!

The intrigue continues. In Obama's political maneuvering to appear "moderate", he recently had Chu tell the Senate that coal is a "great natural resource." This came about because Obama is at least for now going along with a deal between the viros and the coal industry that "asked that any federal limit on greenhouse-gas emissions not hit coal-burning power producers too hard." Browner intervened to subvert the deal, apparently believing Obama meant what he said when he promised to "bankrupt" the coal industry, and told the participants that the administration would not tolerate any development by the coal industry. This was viewed as insubordination of official Administration policy and Obama had his other appointees "signal" the Senate that it wasn't true (which is often the way "communication" is conducted among power factions in Washington).

Here is the latest update on this from the Green Tracking Library on Browner:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and a number of other corporations had quietly negotiated during most of 2008 with a number of green groups to jointly support government aid in developing technology that significantly reduces the environmental toll of coal use, known as Integrated Gasification / Combined Cycle (IGCC) with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and specific emissions control targets. Coal provides half of America's electricity. The joint effort, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, asked that any federal limit on greenhouse-gas emissions not hit coal-burning power producers too hard. The partnership planned to ask Congress for mandates to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 42% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. The plan was advancing well until the first week of January 2009, when Browner, not yet a government official, tried to kill the effort, telling the two parties that the Obama administration would not support any coal technology development. The Center for American Progress, run by Obama Transition Team leader John Podesta, also published a series of anti-corporate analyses condemning clean coal technology and the coal industry. That contradicted campaign promises of then-President-Elect Barack Obama. Did Obama know of or approve these actions? Insiders to the negotiations say he did not. Carol Browner tried to kill a potentially huge improvement in American energy production. She did it for ideological reasons with no concern for the cost or availability of electricity for our citizens.

Obama, however, quickly repeated his campaign pledge. His choice to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, described coal to a Senate panel as "a vital resource" for the country. A day earlier, Mr. Obama's nominee to run the Energy Department, physicist Steven Chu, referred to coal as a "great natural resource." (Two years earlier, he called the expansion of coal-fired power plants his "worst nightmare.")

Point: Undermining and attempting to subvert senior officers is part of Browner's character.

So we now have a president who threatened to bankrupt the coal industry, which provides 50% of the nation's electricity; we have a coal industry making deals with viros in which it is "asking" that the producers not be "hit too hard"; to avoid obvious responsibility for economic collapse the president is pursuing an image of "moderation" as he more slowly destroys the production of energy; and his representative, the radical socialist Browner, is called to the woodshed for being consistent through vague public "signals" interpreted as "promises" and "campaing pledges" to not destroy the producers in the hope that it is true. It's hard to see who is conning whom except that it is probably all of them against everyone. Meanwhile the intellectuals, including the news media, don't examine or report on any of it, keeping the public in the dark as to the policies intended to lead to real dark. Such is the nature of contemporary American politics and culture. You couldn't make this stuff up.

[ewv 0]

Michelle Malkin described last month how Browner, in defiance of a court order, hid her working connections with radical viro organizations while running the Clinton-Gore EPA:

On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: “One of the things I’m the proudest of at EPA is the work we’ve done to expand the public’s right to know.”

...

According to testimony in a freedom of information lawsuit filed against EPA by the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: “‘I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files.” Not coincidentally, the Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents.

...

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer. She explained she was merely cleaning the hard drive of computer games she had downloaded for her son, and that she wanted to expunge the hard drive as a “courtesy” to the incoming Bush administration. How thoughtful. Later, her agency admitted that three other top EPA officials had their computers erased despite the federal court order and ongoing FOIA case (the record is silent on whether Browner’s son was playing games on their desktops, too). A further belated admission revealed that the agency had failed to search Browner’s office for public documents as required by Landmark’s public disclosure lawsuit.

Not only were all the top officials’ hard drives cleared and reformatted, but e-mail backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices.

After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction – actions Lambert lambasted as “contumacious conduct” (obstinate resistance to authority). As is typical in Washington, Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions. Lamberth inexplicably decided that slapping the agency as a whole with contempt – rather than any individual – would deter future cover-ups.

...

Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform. These are the very same groups – anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria – that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama’s “energy czar.”

Full article

[ewv 0]

In a recent interview Browner now tells us that "smart" energy use means the government telling us when we can't use it. She wants control systems embedded in our homes so that the government can monitor and control what we use.

And then, smarter: We need to make sure that we're really moving electricity in the smartest way and using the most cost-effective electricity at the right time of day. Eventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won't operate at its peak, you'll still be able to cool your house, but that'll be a savings to the consumer. And so [we will be] giving people and companies a role in the management of how we use electricity.

Full interview

This isn't the first time this scheme for rationing use of electricity has surfaced; it seems to have become part of the viro agenda.

I guess it's like the viros' "smart growth" meaning viros in government prohibiting growth. Have you noticed that "smart" always means these control freaks telling you what you can't do in accordance with demands that you live under a system requiring advanced permission from bureaucrats?

[RayK 0]

Have you noticed that "smart" always means these control freaks telling you what you can't do in accordance with demands that you live under a system requiring advanced permission from bureaucrats?

Yes, and then they try and make it also look like we the ordinary, non-elected "people" get to play a role in the "management" of our own lives. How nice of the all powerful, all knowing, elected official letting me play a role in the management of my own life.

Hey Browner, I do not want you playing a role in the management of my life, so get the hell out of my way.

[Arnold 0]

Hey Browner, I do not want you playing a role in the management of my life, so get the hell out of my way.

Browner? What an apt name for brownouts.