Sierra Club hires EPA official who wanted to ‘crucify’ EPA lawbreakers

The Hill reports:

A former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official who resigned earlier this year for comparing his work to crucifixion has found new employment with a leading green group.

The Sierra Club on Friday announced that Al Armendariz would be joining the group’s “Beyond Coal” campaign next month as a senior representative.

“As a third generation Texan, I’m proud to be taking on this new role to help protect Texas,” Armendariz said in a statement released by Sierra Club.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who released the video of the meeting, mockingly offered his congratulations to Armendariz on Friday. 

“Dr. Armendariz follows numerous Obama administration officials who have come from or moved to radical left and green groups,” Inhofe said in a statement. “It’s as if there is a revolving door between the White House and organizations such as the Sierra Club.”

“At least at the Sierra Club he won’t get into so much trouble for telling the truth that their true agenda is to kill oil, gas and coal,” he added.

=========================================================


You may remember this guy and what he said in that video:

“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production. And I gave, I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And, that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that’s our general philosophy.”

The Sierra Club should be ashamed for hiring this man. But, then again, given their behavior, we’ve seen they don’t seem to have any shame at all.

About these ads

32 thoughts on “Sierra Club hires EPA official who wanted to ‘crucify’ EPA lawbreakers

  1. Meanwhile, Western liberal utopianism has been on display from Copenhagen to Cancun among those discussing global warming like children hiding under a blanket sharing fears and taking turns scaring each other in the dark. But, the ‘new approach to environmentalism’ – according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout) — ‘requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.’ Patrick has essentially outed Leftists as perpetrators of an anti-humanist and anti-capitalist agenda by eco-commies.

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/the-country-is-not-too-big-to-fail/

  2. “It’s as if there is a revolving door between the White House and organizations such as the Sierra Club.”

    “The Green tree has Red roots.”

  3. the bloke’s comments about crucifixion resemble the authorities’ approach to law-abiding people – make an example of one who goes into a grey area every so often, to give the impression that the country isn’t out of control because the real lawbreakers receive far less attention.

  4. The Sierra Club showed their true colors by taking 25 million from Cheasapeake Energy to demonize coal and now they are demonizing fracking.

  5. how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere

    History isn’t his strong point either. At the time of the Romans, the Turks were living in Central Asia, nowhere near the Roman Empire. The Turks didn’t reach modern day Turkey until the 11th century.

  6. It is not the main point, but this guy knows nothing about history either. His view of the Romans obviously comes from the movies Asia Minor wasn´t Turkish at the time.

  7. “As a third generation Texan, I’m proud to be taking on this new role to help protect Texas,” Armendariz said in a statement released by Sierra Club.

    As a fourth generation Texian, I can positively state that this man is an embarrassment to our great state.

  8. I categorically deny that there is any evidence of Saudi and other OPEC oil money being passed under the table to green groups like the Sierra Club.

  9. I consider him merely one of the outspoken ones who self-identified; consider his identification as an ‘audit’ rather than a ‘census’.

  10. Is this the same Sierra Club that

    ………..received over $26 million from natural-gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp. between 2007 and 2010 to help the group’s campaign against coal-fired power plants.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal

    who then later

    “In 2010, soon after I became the organization’s executive director, I learned that beginning in 2007 the Sierra Club had received more than $26 million from individuals or subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy, one of the country’s largest natural gas companies.”

    http://sierraclub.typepad.com/michaelbrune/2012/02/the-sierra-club-and-natural-gas.html

    So, before he learned about it the Sierra Club had no problem receiving money from fossil fuel interests. This is just one example from these green hypocrites.

  11. Here’s how it worked:

    The Sierra Club quietly accepted $26 million in donations from gas industry interests from 2007 to 2010 — years when the group’s national leaders were talking up gas as a cleaner, greener “bridge fuel” alternative to coal.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72581.html

    He who pays the piper…………………

  12. Nice comments. Seems like corporations dealing with environmental groups resemble people befriending wild bears. You get upset at one for rooting through your garbage, so you put out some food so they’ll stop annoying you. They get closer, wait for the handouts, soon they’ll be eating out of your hand and letting you pet them. Then one day without warning, the bear will suddenly be determined to see you pushed out from their tail end.

    I think our pioneering ancestors knew better how to handle bears than any tree hugger. The minimum distance that bears could be around a house was roughly equal to the maximum effective range of the best shot in the house.

  13. So do like the Romans did and crucify the first five men, eh?

    Come on, why be so modest? It’s actually slaughter any men who try to oppose you, enslave and make eunuchs of any males that might otherwise someday oppose you, and “do what you will” with the females who are too weak to deny you.

    That’s become the EPA’s specialty, their goal, and their reason for existing. Why be so humble about what they’re so good at doing?

  14. “…That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly. So, that’s our general philosophy…”

    Sounds like the Sierra Club wasn’t happy with their public image, so they added a discredited ex-EPA Regional Administrator, Region 6 (one who decided to ignore an “invitation” to a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing).

    He’s also another “scientist” (he has a PhD) who’s not above using faked data for the “greater good”:

    “…In one case, the EPA issued an emergency order in 2010 accusing Range Resources of contaminating an aquifer west of Fort Worth and giving it 48 hours to provide clean drinking water to residents. Armendariz said he went around the state because it wasn’t responding quickly enough. The order later was withdrawn after a state court ruled evidence that fracking had caused the contamination had been falsified…”

  15. As a sixth generation Texan, I’m not so happy for him to be here. Jackwagon.

  16. Well at least he can help make the crucifixes. Di not know this guy had carpentry skills too. Would tht mean chopping some trees down. Oh Oh, Sierra Club did not think this one through

  17. Well there’s nothing revolutionary about this at all. If individuals break the law they should face prosecution. One of the reasons for the current banking crisis is because bankers never feared the consequences of their actions. Having regulation is no use unless it is enforced. We now have revelations in the UK of banks illegally manipulating interest rates in the years preceding 2008. Why aren’t these individuals made examples of?

  18. What is wrong with what this guy said? He explicitly said that he would go after law breakers, not innocent people. His view of making examples out of some criminals, to serve as a deterrent to other people who might become criminals if no one is watching, is a standard tough-minded law enforcement approach.

    Why are so many of you people here taking the side of the criminals? Do you really think that the world would be a better place if there were no environmental regulations? And some of you get snarky about other people not having a sense of history????

  19. That evidence should suffice to declare the Sierra Club an extremist political organisation. And, above all, pull their tax excempt status.

  20. Like this implicitly hints, someone is most likely to want to work for the EPA as a career (or become a climatologist in the modern era) if they are relatively exceptionally an environmentalist, more so than the average person. While not all passion is bad in theory, in practice, that tends too often to heavily correlate with the wrong type of “the ends justify the means” ideology. Although unlikely to be done by the government, what would actually be better to get past tendencies towards such bias would be to have some review boards, particularly on the top, where the members are chosen from, for example, ordinary engineers previously working in other occupations alone. They would be less likely to have made an implicit life commitment to such an ideology. As an analogy, if one has an effective “jury” making decisions, one may ask how such should be comprised, for “jury selection” is important for a fair decision.

    For any organizational structure, it can be paramount to ask what kind of person will be most likely to enter and rise to the top of power. As an example, far worse than the current EPA, which is relatively a paragon of accuracy in comparison, quite frankly among the least honest groups of people I’ve ever seen is the admins and top editors of Wikipedia in the section on global warming articles. Some could be paid operatives, especially considering the billions of dollars supporting the CAGW movement and related causes, but my guess is it may occur primarily rather from how those who rise to the top there tend to be hardcore activists, as rise there is really largely based on postcount or rather edit count. (In fact, as it is far easier to rack up an edit count of thousands by deleting additions of others than to create, they tend to be deletionists as well in addition to their ideology, which also does not correlate with the best psychological profiles, but that’s another topic).

  21. henrythethird, I suspect that Saul Alinsky;s “Rules for Radicals” was a big part of his “scientific” background. As I recall, Alinsky taught that it is wrong to ask whether the ends justify the means. In the Alinsky world, the question is whether some particular ends justify the particular means. “Crucifying” your opponents (figuratively speaking) could easily be justified when if you believe that you are saving the planet by doing so.

  22. re: “how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean”

    The Romans used the same technique that the USA uses and the Brits used: conferring CITIZENSHIP on the conquered.

    The Brits gave the British Passport to their “conquered” which resulted in the Black and Brown returning wave into the British Isles. Visit London to see for oneself.

    Look around the USA and see how the US policy of importing the world’s non-white hordes is working out. Our military is scattered all over the world and our reward is the demographic transformation of the country. Makes sense doesn’t it?

    Dan Kurt

  23. tano says:
    July 1, 2012 at 8:44 am
    What is wrong with what this guy said? He explicitly said that he would go after law breakers, not innocent people. His view of making examples out of some criminals, to serve as a deterrent to other people who might become criminals if no one is watching, is a standard tough-minded law enforcement approach.

    Why are so many of you people here taking the side of the criminals? Do you really think that the world would be a better place if there were no environmental regulations? And some of you get snarky about other people not having a sense of history????
    ———————————
    What’s wrong?
    It’s the use of the word criminal and the government’s actions. It’s hypocritical.
    There’s a common bond.
    Not the EPA with bird killers and drones.
    Not the DEA and INS violating state’s rights.
    Not ATFE giving guns to murderers knowing they will be used unlawfully.
    Not the USAG acting in Contempt of Congress being protected by his boss.
    Not the US Courts and their failure to protect the constitution. (think Kelo)
    It’s not even Congress “pass(ing) the bill to see what’s in it.”
    It’s what’s in common that’s wrong, IMO.
    The US Constitution does not give them the right.
    It’s about freedom and our rights not theirs.

  24. He was inaccurate in comparing with Rome. The Roman Empire with all its cruelty advanced civilization at a time when extreme cruelty was common. Today when it is not so common the green movement are deconstructing civilization.

    It is worth remembering the Germans beat the crap out of the Romans in the 9 AD establishing Germania as a state. They slaughtered 6 to 10 percent of the entire Roman Army and there has not been anyone crucified by a Roman in that area since.

    The moral is watch what you do, what goes around comes around.

  25. Vince Causey says:
    July 1, 2012 at 8:26 am

    ….Having regulation is no use unless it is enforced. We now have revelations in the UK of banks illegally manipulating interest rates in the years preceding 2008. Why aren’t these individuals made examples of?
    ____________________________________
    Because the bankers OWN the politicians. In the USA a Judge went after a bank.

    Justice Mahoney stated:

    Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

    The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world…..

    Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

    If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!5

    ….Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

    The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

    Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:

    We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.6

    Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:

    Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created — brand new money.7

    Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

    [W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

    ….Ellen Brown, J.D. http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php/

    The Rule of Law has nothing to do with how the law is “administered” It is who you are and how much money and influence you have that determines whether you get away with murder

Comments are closed.