Another EPA crock: 'P' is for 'propaganda'
A new report shows wealthy extremists' “capture” of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency has made it anything but an honest broker of taxpayer dollars.
The report by the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works describes a “Billionaire's Club” that “directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls policy decisions and lobbies” on the EPA's behalf.
The club donates “large sums to intermediaries” that “funnel the money to other 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations,” creates “phony ‘grassroots' movements” and promotes “bogus” anti-fossil-fuel “propaganda disguised as science and news” while maximizing charitable tax-deduction loopholes.
Doing their part, EPA extremists send taxpayer dollars to what The Examiner of Washington calls “former employers and colleagues” at far-left groups such as the National Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund. Each group has received $1 million-plus in Obama EPA grants.
Instead of funding valid science that follows where evidence leads, the EPA funds one-sided “research” that “confirms” the eco-wacko environmental agenda. So long as the “Billionaire's Club” controls it, the EPA might as well be called the Environmental Propaganda Agency.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- American contrasts: Post-Ferguson
- Thanksgiving briefing ...
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Taxing policies
- Reversing Kane: Questions of competence
- Snoopers’ flights: Air raid!
- The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply