FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Contact: Chris Horner
Chris.Horner@ATI.org
Texas Tech ignores request for Gingrich book records
Controversial activist professor claims to have spent 100+ hours on chapter suddenly dropped from upcoming book
WASHINGTON — American Tradition Institute, a non-profit research institute dedicated to restoring science, liberty and accountability to the environmental debate, filed on Dec. 10 a Public Information Act request with Texas Tech University relating to collaboration on a book, using public time and resources, between “climate” activist Professor Katharine Hayhoe and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
Texas Tech was to produce responsive records by early last week. To date, ATI has not received a response.
“This is a matter of significant public interest, as Mr. Gingrich’s views and past activism on the ‘climate’ issue receive scrutiny by voters seeking to assess his judgment and compatibility with their views,” said Chris Horner, ATI’s Senior Director of Litigation.
Hayhoe, who preaches that human activity is destroying the climate and that Christian stewardship compels acceptance of the ‘climate’ agenda, had been publicly identified as a contributor to Gingrich’s forthcoming book “Environmental Entrepreneurs.” Hayhoe had gained notoriety for urging evangelical Christians into supporting the controversial, costly and according to all computer models, climatically meaningless ‘climate’ agenda. News outlets now report that Gingrich, under fire for his left-of-center views on the environment from presidential competitors and Tea Party activists, quickly deep-sixed Hayhoe’s chapter last week.
“Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby,” Hayhoe posted on her Twitter account Dec. 30.
ATI requested all emails to or from any Texas Tech email account used by Hayhoe (including as “cc”,) and either or both Gingrich and his co-author Terry Maple.
ATI also requested all emails sent or received by Hayhoe citing or referring to one or more of the following: Newt Gingrich (or “Newt” or “Gingrich”), Terry Maple (or “Terry”, or “Maple”), American Solutions (including in the email address/domain), and/or “Environmental Entrepreneurs”.
With time of the essence and the law very clear, ATI questions any further delays by Texas Tech in coming into compliance with its obligations, and calls on the university to promptly produce these records the public paid for and have a right to see.
# # #
—
American Tradition Institute
Tom Tanton, Acting Executive Director
When it comes down to it they are all TREES!!!! They sway in the direction they want to when it comes down to it and the idea can benefit them. I personally think Ron Paul is the best man for the job out of everyone in the race.. Seems like a nice honest guy..
The ignorance and arrogance of politicians and liberal activists is unbound when it comes to values.
Politicians and activists never tire of telling us what our moral values are and it is always tied to one or more of their goals and possibly personal investments.
We elect politicians to represent us within the limits of the constitution not to lecture us on our values and certainly not to denigrate our religion by attempting to change the values imbedded in Christianity to support their ecological agendas.
From yahoo answers: Ignorance can be fixed by learning but arrogance can only get worse.
Heyhoe is like a 12 year old David Appell. Watch this
http://video.pbs.org/video/1881274265/
See how many minutes you can take nonstop. Be sure and go to 7:30 in and watch for a few minutes.
more of her http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/secretlife/scientists/katharine-hayhoe/
Dave, u r enamoured by sound bites. One of the worst ways to determine who to vote for are thru words spoken or read. That would include Paul’s words as well. Discover his voting record and careers. Base your decision on that, not sound bites.
if you will forgive a Brit for commenting on this subject i can only offer this quote
“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
~ H.L.Mencken”
Luther Wu says:
January 2, 2012 at 7:16 am
“That’s an interesting scenario and given the POTUS general lackadaisical attitude, you might be on to something, but who are ‘the powers that run the show?”
The real leaders of the Democrat Party, the ones who control who gets to spend the campaign money.
plenarchist says:
January 2, 2012 at 7:34 am
“Had Paul been President in the 1990′s, 911 would *not* have happened.”
That is precisely the ignorance I spoke of!
savethesharks said:
“Take heart! Be strong and of good courage.
And I can not believe I am saying this butt I have to admit about the viable candidate: I AM AGREEING WITH R GATES.
Ron Paul is the only intellectually honest presidential candidate….by a wide margin.”
_____
Then we agree twice, as I happen to like Ron Paul as well…certainly the best, and as you said most honest, of the Republican crop. He’s never flip-flopped on any issue as every other candidate has. Unfortunately, he’ll never get too far as the Defense Industry won’t back him (and they have huge clout in D.C.), and the hardliner conservatives see him weak on defense (which he isn’t).
plenarchist says:
January 2, 2012 at 7:20 am
“Paul is the *only* candidate who will cut Fed’l spending and rollback the Fed’l leviathan.”
The POTUS CANNOT do anything about spending without a compliant Congress. The next Congress, no matter what the make up, will fail once again to make real cuts in programs that matter. The general public has been so well brain washed into believing that the government is the answer to all their woes that it is going to take several election cycles of bold leaders in both the White House and Congress to even begin to tackle the national debt. And that will never happen. Too many people receiving too many government checks.
dave38,,
That’s one of my favorite Mencken quotes, among many.
By the time nomination or even election gets around to my state and county it’s a done deal. That’d be part of why I’ve voted mostly third party the last 16 years. If you clowns would, I’d be happy with 1. Santorum 2. Romney 3. Ron Paul
Santorum replied:
I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.
Santorum continued that the idea of man-made climate changer may be part of a liberal conspiracy: “To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’”
“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life,” he added, “and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Here’s the audio:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/rick-santorum-the-idea-of-climate-change-is-a-liberal-conspiracy.php?m=1
Like her amigo, Andy Dessler, Ms. Hayhoe has a background in atmospheric science. Unfortunately for the tax paying public her real passion is politics (of the moonbat variety). This is a bad combo. As we know for progressives the ends justify any means. Her political goals seem to compromise her scientic objectivity since she uses the cachet of her scientific background to promote her political agenda and uses her political inclinations to advise her ‘science’.
Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
M.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
B.Sc. Physics and Astronomy, University of Toronto
Associate professor in the Department of Political Science Texas Tech
Do you prefer a politician who can learn, and change position as new evidence materializes, or do you want one who has to be locked into an original thought? Remember, all the early published data took the mantra of global warming. After publication of these early views some time elapsed before skeptical views were published. It appears to me that Gingrich shows he can learn. This is unusual, and with his knowledge of Washington workings, he could likely cut costs more than anyone else. You might argue the words ‘could/would’, but the only other candidate who might be a real cost cutter is Ron Paul, an isolationist. As a conservative, in my view, that might possibly be worse than our current know-nothing, Obama.
@Tom in Florida – “The POTUS CANNOT do anything about spending without a compliant Congress.”
That’s not true at all.
* The POTUS has control over *all* military operations. By executive order, POTUS can close foreign bases, return troops, stop wars, and disband mercenaries. That alone saves $100’s billions. Paul says he will do that.
* The POTUS has control over foreign aid. Paul would eliminate all and save many billion$.
* The POTUS can cancel *any* prior executive orders. Paul would cancel many if not all. That would include eliminating EPA which was enacted by Nixon executive order. He’ll close Gitmo.
* POTUS appoints governors to Fed and selects Fed chairman. Senate must confirm but not confirming a Paul appointment would go against will of the people. As POTUS, he’d be able to put considerable pressure on the Fed.
* POTUS can close down departments. Paul will close 5 federal depts; Energy, Education, HUD, Commerce, Interior. Saves billion$ more. Congress can’t stop that.
* Current four Supremes in 70’s. Good chance for several appointments under next POTUS. Paul would choose Constitutionalist judges.
Congress can appropriate funds but POTUS spends the money. Paul won’t spend the money. Congress can make laws to force POTUS but Paul would likely challenge them on Constitutional grounds. Their only recourse is to impeach, but if Paul is elected POTUS he has the will of the people behind him. Very risky for Congress to take that path. And Paul might be effective with Congress. To say he won’t is speculation. At the end of the day though, I’d rather have four years of do-nothing Congress than a ‘compliant’ Congress collaborating with the POTUS to continue raping this country.
@Pete – “It appears to me that Gingrich shows he can learn.” Gingrich is not a newt, he’s a chameleon. This guy made $40 million from lobbying for big-pharma and Freddie Mac. He was removed from Congress for ethics violations. He’s a brilliant political operator and will say whatever he must to get elected. Then he’ll do what he wants. We already know Gingrich wants to push for CO2 regs and cap-n-trade. He has said repeatedly that his political hero is… FDR. Newt is no conservative.
Paul OTH is an AGW skeptic and will likely eliminate the EPA. As an AGW skeptic myself, I’d rather have Paul in my corner.
@Pete – “… Ron Paul, an isolationist.” And Paul is *not* an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist following the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson, “…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” The real isolationists want to put on sanctions, erect trade barriers, and invade other countries like Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and the rest. They are aggressive isolationists. Imperialists really.
plenarchist,
The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.
Justa Joe says:
January 2, 2012 at 10:25 am
Why would a person with a degree in physics/math be working from the poli sci department?
@Smokey – “The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.” Based on what? Paul will get far more independent and crossover Dem votes than any other GOP candidate. Romney is the only other candidate who can beat Obama and Romney *is* another Obama. A Obama-vs-Romney match up will be a vote for Obomney. But bottom line, a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. One thing is certain though that if Paul doesn’t get the nomination, few Paul supporters will vote for the GOP candidate and many will go back to Obama. Not me, I’ll write in Paul.
Given the high level of discourse on this blog, I am astonished and dismayed by the number of Paulbots emerging on this thread. Ron Paul has many good ideas on domestic fiscal policy, but larger number of completely kooky ones, especially when it comes to foreign policy. His suggestion that we forget about Iran and leave tiny Israel to defend herself against the fanatical mullahs intent upon bringing the 12th Iman into the world by eradicating “the Zionist entity” should disqualify Paul instantly. That isn’t just rhetoric: letting Iran have the Bomb will virtually guarantee the second Holocaust.
I am a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but agree with those who question his intellectual dilettantism; he is also too enamored of statist ‘solutions’ for my tastes. I would love to see Newt eviscerate The Puppet President in debates, but worry about his steadiness as a Commander in Chief. I am also not happy with Newt’s flirtation with AGW dogma and Crap and Tax.
Back in 2008 I sent a letter to Mitt Romney suggesting he take the lead in challenging the academic and political orthodoxy on AGW. I never even got the courtesy of a reply from a staffer. I’m quite sure Mitt’s recent moderation of his warmist views is a politically-motivated gesture to the skeptical Republican base.
Rick Perry is a forthright exponent of skeptical views on climate, but he has yet to convince me he can think on his feet; he makes George W. Bush look positively eloquent.
Probably the best is Rick Santorum:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/rick-santorum-glenn-beck-global-warming-oil_n_884646.html
I agree entirely with Sen. Santorum, but doubt there is much chance he can get nominated.
/Mr Lynn
plenarchist,
I’m just being realistic.
@Mr. Lynn – “…the number of Paulbots” Don’t insult me. What kind of ‘bot’ are you?
“Ron Paul has many good ideas on domestic fiscal policy, but larger number of completely kooky ones, especially when it comes to foreign policy.” He’s the only sane candidate wrt foreign policy. Maybe you can back up your claim of Paul being kooky? Most of the intelligence community agrees with him, Mossad, Netanyahu, CIA bin Laden unit chief… These people kooks too?
Santorum will start WWIII if he’s given half the chance. Santorum was listed by CREW as one of three most corrupt Senators (http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/). He’s a lobbyist. He’s never held a job outside politics and lobbying. He’s an imperialist and an Israel-firster. If anyone is kooky, he’s the guy.
@Smokey – “I’m just being realistic.” That’s not an answer. I’m being realistic and believe Paul’s got the best chance of beating Obama. Why wouldn’t he? He might not get the support of hard-core neocons but he gets *way* more independents and crossover Dems. So, the Limbaugh and Hannity crowd won’t vote for him… Given a choice between Paul and Obama, would they vote Obama?
If GOP puts up a polarizing candidate like Santorum or Gingrich, Obama wins. If GOP puts up Romney and Romney wins… the establishment wins because the Obama and Romney are ideological twins. There’s no difference between them once you get past the rhetoric.
Smokey says:
January 2, 2012 at 11:01 am
> The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.
While it’s just a press release from the the Ron Paul campaign, apparently ttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21 thought it worth posting
Poll highlights include Paul besting Obama 47 to 46 percent among those 65 years and older, said to be the most reliable voters. Paul also beats Obama among whites 51 to 46 percent, persons who reside in rural areas 52 to 44 percent, and independents by 48 to 47 percent.
http://www.infowars.com/new-poll-ron-paul-betters-other-gop-candidates-vs-obama/ notes “The latest poll [the one marketwatch is referring to] dovetails with a previous NBC News/Marist poll out of Iowa that found Obama beating all GOP competitors except for Ron Paul.
The results of these polls prove that Paul is the only GOP candidate that appeals to voters across the political spectrum.”
You say “a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama,” but it’s also an important message that voters are not happy with hole the two old parties have dug. If they don’t get their act in order, they may find themselves enjoying an early retirement.
I think Anthony should endorse Ron Paul. A lot of conservatives that visit wattsup have paleo-conservative values. Even though many of these posters do not realize it, they are really relics of old America just like Ron Paul.
And I don’t see the point of this site, b!tching and complaining about the way the establishment wants carbon taxes, shelters, protects and created (you think someone like Man created a AGW hysteria on his own?) criminals like Man, expose the lies behind AGW endlessly. Yet the climate change machine marches forward, country after country introduces carbon taxes. And when a good opportunity comes to strike at the big GW lie politically, you make no move.
Honestly, what’s the point of this site?
Bachman, Gengrich, Romney all are actors that play the conservative tune but when it comes to action, they’re just liberals, the diet-coke version, no different than Bush or McCain.
Bring the Constitution back, support Ron Paul!!!
Ric Werme,
Don’t misuderstand; in the general election I’ll vote for anyone but Obama. But in the primaries [open primary in California – I’m registered ‘Decline to State’], I’ll vote for the candidate I think is most likely to beat Obama. At this point I don’t think that’s Ron Paul. But I could change my mind as the primaries progress.
I wrote, “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who told his supporters to vote against the Republican ticket in 2008…”
Plenarchist replied, “Citation please? This doesn’t sound like Paul at all,…”
Here is your citation:
WASHINGTON (CNN)– Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.
Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin…”
And just how bad is Cynthia McKinney, who Ron Paul preferred for President over McCain?
Well, do you remember Hank Johnson (D-GA), who worried that too many people might cause Guam to capsize? Hank is the upgrade from McKinney. Cynthia Mckinney used to represent that district, and Hank Johnson beat her because she was too insane for even that crazy district to stomach.
But Ron Paul encouraged his supporters to vote for her over McCain, for President.
Here you can see Cynthia McKinney on Libyan TV, supporting Gaddafi:
That’s who Ron Paul preferred to McCain/Palin, for President of the United States of America.
What do you think of Ron Paul’s judgment, now? Would you want him picking federal judges, cabinet secretaries, and ambassadors? Seriously??
Are you shocked? Don’t feel bad. You’re not alone. I’ve found that most Ron Paul supporters don’t know much about him. They just know he speaks passionately (and usually correctly) about the Constitution and the limited powers which our bloated federal government is supposed to have, and they are moved to stand up and cheer! And, to that, I say, “Amen!”
But Ron Paul also has a dark side: of race-baiting, of pandering to white supremacist & survivalist nuts & 9-11 “truthers” like Alex Jones, and of wildly irresponsible remarks, such as his recent encouragement for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, a critical international waterway.
Please don’t support Ron Paul.