Is Attorneys’ General Mischief just the Tip of the Iceberg?

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

The recent escalation of rogue Attorneys General persecuting conservative political organizations and their real or alleged supporters suggests that Climate Alarmism has been playing a much wider role in politics than it seemed. The Left has been riding Climate Alarmism to muzzle and defund its opponents since at least 2000. Following the infamous Tobacco Precedent, the Left has declared a broad range of conservative, libertarian, and Republican organizations as front groups for “fossil fuels,” and threatened their donors and supporters with civil action or even criminal persecution. The climate alarmists do not even hide their aspiration for unlimited political power. One of many examples is a declaration by “We think the climate crisis is about power”. Few months ago I wrote about progressive defunding of climate realists and real science. But the recent barrage of subpoenas, combined with other accumulated evidence, suggests that Climate Alarmism has caused and/or been used for an unprecedented campaign of political suppression, running for more than 15 years.

Apparently, the extreme Left bought the Democratic Party in 2004, and openly boasted about it: “Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Neither party in this transaction has denied or retracted this well-documented and publicized statement. This purchase was financed in part by Quantum Hedge Funds, which is domiciled in the Netherlands Antilles and/or Cayman Islands, and is personified by George Soros. Since then, everyone involved has actively used the property that changed hands to persecute conservatives under the pretext of countering climate change.

Their modus operandi can be observed as follows:

1) Hostile foreign entities and their domestic accomplices compile lists of individuals and/or organizations that they want to muzzle and/or destroy for any reason. The political targets are invariably conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans. Other targets include vital industries and defense, but those campaigns are beyond the scope of this article.

2) These lists are merged, sorted, and truncated to obtain an actionable target list.

3) The targets on the list are declared “climate deniers,” industry shills, and so on. Their names are publicized and smeared. Their friends and supporters are intimidated.

4) Finally, the targets list is handed down to the purchased congresspersons and government officials, who persecute them by abusing the power of their offices.

An infamous January 2013 “study” by Robert Brulle (Drexel University) entitled Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations, broadly promoted by government agencies and the media, gives us an insight into this process. Among other things, Mr. Brulle [compiled] a target list of allegedly climate change counter-movement organizations (CCCM) organizations. This “study” was immediately debunked and ridiculed, so I want to highlight just one aspect of it: most of the targeted political organizations and think tanks did not have any substantial links to either climate debates or energy industries. The list, containing 118 targets, is reproduced below. Organizations that were included solely for their broadly conservative political views (to the best of my knowledge) are in bold.

60 Plus

  1. Advancement Of Sound Science Center Inc. The
  2. Alliance For Climate Strategies (ACS)
  3. American Coal Foundation
  4. American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)
  5. American Conservative Union Foundation
  6. American Council For Capital Formation
  7. American Council For Capital Formation Center For Policy Research
  8. American Energy Alliance/Institute For Energy Research
  9. American Energy Freedom Center
  10. American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research
  11. American Farm Bureau
  12. American Friends Of The Institute Of Economic Affairs
  13. American Gas Association
  14. American Legislative Exchange Council
  15. American Natural Gas Alliance
  16. American Petroleum Institute
  17. American Policy Center
  18. American Tradition Institute
  19. Americans For Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC)
  20. Americans For Prosperity/Americans For Prosperity Foundation
  21. Annapolis Center For Science-Based Public Policy
  22. Association Of Global Automobile Manufacturers
  23. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
  24. Capital Research Center/Greenwatch
  25. Cascade Policy Institute
  26. Cato Institute
  27. Center For The Defense Of Free Enterprise
  28. Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change/CO2
  29. Chamber Of Commerce Of The United States Of America
  30. Citizen’s Coalition On Global Climate Policy
  31. Citizens For Affordable Energy
  32. Climate Audit
  33. Climate Science Coalition Of America
  34. Climate Strategies Watch
  35. CO2 Is Green
  36. Coalition For American Jobs
  37. Coalition For Vehicle Choice
  38. Coalition To Preserve American Security And Sovereignty
  39. Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow
  40. Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
  41. Competitive Enterprise Institute
  42. Congress Of Racial Equality
  43. Consumer Alert/National Consumer Coalition
  44. Consumer Energy Alliance
  45. Cooler Heads Coalition
  46. Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation
  47. Edison Electric Institute
  48. Energy Citizens
  49. Energy Makes America Great
  50. Environmental Literacy Council
  51. Federation For American Coal, Energy And Security
  52. Free Enterprise Action Institute/Free Enterprise Education Institute
  53. Freedom Action
  54. Freedom Works
  55. Freedom Works Foundation
  56. Friends Of Coal
  57. Frontiers Of Freedom Institute And Foundation
  58. George C. Marshall Institute
  59. Global Climate Coalition
  60. Global Climate Information Project
  61. Global Warming Initiative
  62. Greening Earth Society
  63. Heartland Institute
  64. Heritage Foundation
  65. Hoover Institution
  66. Hudson Institute
  67. Ice Age Now
  68. Independence Institute
  69. Independent Institute
  70. Independent Petroleum Association Of America
  71. Independent Women’s Forum
  72. Industrial Energy Consumers Of America
  73. Information Council On The Environment
  74. Institute For Biospheric Research
  75. Institute For Energy Research
  76. Institute For Liberty
  77. Institute For The Study Of Earth And Man
  78. Intermountain Rural Electric Association
  79. International Climate And Environmental Change
  80. International Climate Science Coalition
  81. International Policy Network
  82. James Madison Institute
  83. John Locke Foundation
  84. Landmark Legal Foundation
  85. Manhattan Institute For Policy Research
  86. Manhattan Libertarian Party
  87. Media Research Center
  88. Mercatus Center, George Mason University
  89. Mountain States Legal Foundation
  90. National Association Of Manufacturers
  91. National Center For Policy Analysis
  92. National Center For Public Policy Research
  93. National Mining Association
  94. National Petrochemical And Refiners Association
  95. National Petroleum Council
  96. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
  97. National Taxpayers Union
  98. National Taxpayers Union Foundation
  99. Oklahoma Council Of Public Affairs
  100. Oregon Institute Of Science And Medicine
  101. Pacific Research Institute For Public Policy
  102. Plants Need Co2
  103. Reason Foundation/Reason Public Policy Institute
  104. Responsible Resources
  105. Science And Environment Policy Project
  106. Science And Public Policy Institute
  107. Southeastern Legal Foundation
  108. Sovereignty International
  109. State Policy Network
  110. Surface Stations. Org
  111. Texas Public Policy Foundation
  112. Thomas Jefferson Institute For Public Policy
  113. TS August/The Second Of August
  114. Washington Policy Center
  115. Western Fuels Association
  116. World Climate Report
  117. World Coal Association

Brulle’s paper is quite explicit about its target identification criteria, including conservative, libertarian, and Republican views not related to the climate debates. According to the article’s Methodological Appendix,

“To develop a comprehensive roster of CCCM organizations for this study, a two-step process was used. First, a consolidated list of all of the organizations identified in prior studies was created. This compilation resulted in a list of 538 organizations for consideration as a CCCM organization.” This long list was not revealed, but it used a list from a 1997 “study” by the Leftist National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations.

As you can see, even the pretense of a relation to the climate debates is missing. Alleged CCCM organizations from “studies” by the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose membership rules are so lax, dogs can be admitted as members)  and Greenpeace were added as well.

In the second step, this long list was narrowed down to 118 organizations, using opinions of Greenpeace, SourceWatch, and Wikipedia as the guiding light (“evidence that this organization is generally perceived to be part of the climate counter-movement”.) SourceWatch (originally Disinfopedia) is a project of the deceptively named Center for Media and Democracy, funded by the mentioned Quantum Hedge Funds and other usual suspects.

Oh, and one more thing: this “scholarship” was definitely funded by taxpayers’ money, in case there was any doubt.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 18, 2016 1:18 pm

“Among other things, Mr. Brulle complied a target list of “………Should that be ” compiled” ? ( sorry for nit picking) LOL
[Well, it depends on whether or not he assented to the pile of what he complied … .mod]

Bruce Cobb
June 18, 2016 1:50 pm

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” –Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 18, 2016 9:41 pm

And there is the INET/Institute for New Economic Thinking (New York City) established by Soros, Balsillie, and Janeway with Sachs as their link to the Vatican.
Huffington of Huffington Post is listed as an Expert on the “INET Experts” webpage.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 20, 2016 6:51 am

How long till one of the usual suspects shows up whining about how this site has been ruined by allowing any discussion of politics.

Follow the Money
June 18, 2016 2:03 pm

Oh, and one more thing: this “scholarship” was definitely funded by taxpayers’ money, in case there was any doubt.
If you say so. One can also say this reads like another overworked American right-wing screed trying to sound comprehensive while avoiding doing the obvious and following the money to the large corporations funding and influencing and creating the climate alarmist groups. Large corporations as victims is part of their fantasized shared victim-hood identity.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 18, 2016 2:08 pm

Show us your list….

Reply to  Patvann
June 19, 2016 4:59 am

If such a list existed, it would have been published long ago.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 18, 2016 2:34 pm

I wonder who they think is going to pay in the tax money to allow them to keep running the government like a “charity” with a bottomless checkbook, if they eliminate practically every entity capable of profitable operation.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 19, 2016 8:19 am

There is no intent to shut these down, anymore than tobacco was shut down. This is an effort to tax all such organizations, calling it a “fine” or whatever, and give more money to the government. There is never a shut down—as you say, they can’t get money out of bankrupt organizations.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 19, 2016 8:58 pm

Exactly, more often than not, more bigger band aid money is collected and needed by the “think tank” to keep operating. its a sponge applicator operation, moving into idle lobby pockets on both sides.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 18, 2016 3:57 pm

The science behind CAGW is very very weak. The problem we have is understanding why so many powerful people and organizations have embraced it.
It is possible that the powerful are naive enough to believe that the science is solid. They didn’t get where they are by being stupid though. Thus we are left casting around for some kind of ulterior motive.
With regard to money … Donna LaFramboise has been following the money for a while now.
Judith Curry has done a piece on the staggering amount of money the government has spent trying to get researchers to prove CAGW.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
June 18, 2016 9:44 pm

Donna L ‘s face should go on the $5 bill!

Reply to  commieBob
June 19, 2016 11:35 am

They can be ‘smart’ and stupid at the same time. This won’t be the first ruling class hoist by their own shenanigans.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Follow the Money
June 18, 2016 4:19 pm

Follow the Money June 18, 2016 at 2:03 pm
The true is nether side likes to be used, but there are patriots on both sides of the aisle. athe below is the money quote, it can earn you a all expense payed trip to Leavenworth, Yuh we’re back in Kansas Toto..
“Other targets include vital industries and defense, but those campaigns are beyond the scope of this article.”

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 19, 2016 4:58 am

If such a list existed, it would have been published long ago.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Follow the Money
June 19, 2016 8:24 am

Nobody spends their own money on the climate issue. Even the most ardent alarmists don’t spend a dime of THEIR money solving the problem. Climate issues are funded exclusively with other peoples money (i.e. taxpayers).

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 19, 2016 2:31 pm

Exxon, Monsanto, Nestle, McDonalds, and Shell, to name just a few, are big corporations, and make no mistake, victims of leftist disinformers. Not that these companies were unstained saints, they don’t deserve what they get from radical extremists.
P.S. they didn’t pay me a dime.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 20, 2016 6:52 am

Notice the technique followed by your average leftist.
It doesn’t even try to counter the arguments and evidence, he just proclaims that it’s all a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 20, 2016 8:33 am

The irony of “follow the money” is amazing.

Reply to  Follow the Money
June 20, 2016 12:36 pm

‘Right Wing’. Oh for God’s sake.
Perhaps you should actually follow the money, instead of sticking to the blind narrative provided you – which is really what should be obvious.
I do notice that you immediately identify your predetermined culprits, thus cramming reality through your rigidly close-minded ideological world view. All of course, to preserver your own ‘fantasized shared victim-hood identity’.
And of course, your own warm fuzzy self-image, which is really more of a modern Marie Antoinette-styled elitism.
Newsflash; Most of the big American corporations – including those under the heading of the dastardly ‘Big Oil’ (particularly under the even-large heading ‘Big Energy’) – are among the biggest green investors in the world.
And then you might try to follow the trail from there to almost all the major media outlets, and then to the politicians (literally AND figuratively) in bed with them.

Curious George
June 18, 2016 2:09 pm

Those people are looking for a conspiracy everywhere.

Reply to  Curious George
June 18, 2016 4:57 pm

Because they’re engaged in one themselves?

Cynthia Maher
June 18, 2016 2:14 pm

At first I felt frightened, but now I’m glad. It had seemed like only a few people were resisting in court, but now, more people see the threat to themselves, and they are hopping mad, and fighting back. If these AGs don’t back off, watch the lawsuits fly. (

Gunga Din
June 18, 2016 2:38 pm

Is Attorneys’ General Mischief just the Tip of the Iceberg?

Ask the IRS.
(It seems the only part of the Constitution they stand by is the 5th Amendment.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 18, 2016 2:55 pm

The IRS would respond, but their computers are down because the hard drives crashed.

Reply to  Taphonomic
June 18, 2016 8:19 pm

I thought that was the EPA … or was that Hillary?

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 18, 2016 3:25 pm

I think even the 5th amendment is under attack, it’s just not a priority when compared to the 1st and the 2nd. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that so far remains unmolested, IMO, is the 3rd.

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 18, 2016 6:43 pm

Not for private citizens they don’t. Pleading the fifth with the IRS will get you new locks on your doors

old construction worker
Reply to  ATheoK
June 19, 2016 4:26 am

“IRS will get you new locks on your doors”
guilty until proven innocent
IRS is not the only agency. The Local State and Feds Law enforcement have the same powers.
Just ask anybody who have had property taken without being charged with a crime or breaking any laws. From I understand it takes hiring an attorney and years to get the property back.

Reply to  ATheoK
June 19, 2016 4:42 pm

old construction worker:
Yes and no, compared to how the IRS operates; with the local police and Federal police (FBI), a good lawyer and a friendly local or Federal judge can get your property back most of the time.
The IRS, FWS, CIA and perhaps several other agencies, when they decide to confiscate, you do not have a chance without that years long battle, even if they made a huge mistake. That’s for you to prove.
BATF is one agency that keeps trying to pretend they have IRS type of powers, officially they do not.
IRS does not have to charge you with a crime. All it takes is if IRS believes someone is cheating them; and they’ll impound your accounts, confiscate and sell your property. It does take years, even with good legal help and solid financial proof to get any money back. Forget the property, they sold it.
May such ‘due process’ and ‘non due process’ legal actions never happen to any of us.

michael hart
June 18, 2016 2:47 pm

I was skeptical about catastrophic AGW when I first heard about it as a pre-teen in the 1970’s. My skepticism has proved to be justified. They can prosecute the hell out of anyone they like, but it won’t actually change my mind.
They just don’t get it.

Kevin R.
Reply to  michael hart
June 18, 2016 6:38 pm

They aren’t trying to change minds. They are trying to force their will on the rest of society.

Reply to  michael hart
June 18, 2016 9:48 pm

It’s all about denying people a voice by denying them funding.

Reply to  Hivemind
June 20, 2016 8:35 am

the cut off of funding is merely a first step on a long path they are walking.

June 18, 2016 2:50 pm

I very much agree with the recent letter by various Attorneys General opposing the RICO 20. I do think, however, they should have filed suit/charges under the Ku Klux Klan Act (18 USC 241?), and bankrupted and/or jailed the conspirators. Al Gore for lead defendant?

Grey Lensman
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 18, 2016 8:50 pm

Its Attorney Generals, not Attorneys General . Sigh, its Simple English not French

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Vancouver
Reply to  Grey Lensman
June 18, 2016 9:11 pm

Give it up, Grey. They are attorneys, not generals. Their purview is general.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
Reply to  Grey Lensman
June 19, 2016 3:42 am

Tom Halla is correct and Grey Lensman is not. The phrase “Attorney General” is an exception to the general english practice of putting the adjective before the noun it modifies. Thus the proper plural is Attorneys General. See also Surgeon General, Inspector General and Court Martial (this last one trips up more people that Attorney General).
But not everyone is in favor of keeping the historical practice. See here.
It is practically impossible to make the possessive form sound “right” so even in court filings the incorrect form “… the Attorney General’s opinion …” is often used. See here . The other option is to dance around the possessive form of the noun using a phrase like “It is the opinion of the Attorney General …”.
Languages which maintain different case endings don’t have this problem as both the noun and the modifying adjective change endings to indicate the possessive attribute.

Reply to  Grey Lensman
June 20, 2016 1:10 am

No, it’s not “Attorney Generals” – it’s “Attorneys General”

Reply to  Grey Lensman
June 20, 2016 7:43 am

In Commonwealth countries, the term is “attorneys general” often hyphenated. Also, governors-general, inspectors-general.
In English, unlike Spanish and French, adjectives such as “general”, do not add an ‘s’ to agree with a plural noun, such as attorneys.

June 18, 2016 2:55 pm

The gaming community found themselves faced with similar attacks. They counterattacked successfully, which was written up in the book “SJWs Always Lie,” by Vox Day, available in booksteros, Amazon, etc. Definitely something for us to study.
Volume 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations includes felonies such as Color of Law and Misprision of Felony. There are also laws about abuse of power and Abuse by a person in a position of trust. These attorneys General are FELONS and badly need to be jailed. Catch is–they are the system and buddies defend them, etc.
I think the WUWT community may be large enough to get this vital job done.

June 18, 2016 2:57 pm

Don’t give Lewandowsky more ideas for more junk conspiracy papers.
That the left embraced green as a means to further their ends is not new news. Former UNFCCC head Figueroa made that clear enough. ‘Watermelons’ sums this up.
That the left targets ‘enemies’ is not new news. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is sufficient evidence.
The only new news is that as the watermelons increasingly fail cause their CAGW science is shonky, they resort to increasingly unconstitutional and extralegal means to forcibly impose what they could not persuade. Won’t end well for them, as their true selves are increasingly exposed for the ruthless totalitarians they are. At least in the US, we have the first amendment. And the second to back up the first, just in case.

Reply to  ristvan
June 18, 2016 3:35 pm

Problem is, both the first and second are under serious assault. If the watermelons are smart, and I think they are, they will not hang their hat on the repeal of the first or second anytime soon. What they will continue to do is chip away at them piece by piece, over time. The only way to keep them from taking away our rights is to defeat them, decisively and in such a manner a new generation will not want to crawl out from under their rock for decades to come.

Reply to  SMC
June 19, 2016 2:46 pm

The way to stop them is the method used several years ago – replace those Senators and Congress members who are vocal about gun control. Congress learned the hard way what happens when you try messing with 2nd Amendment rights. That has been evident after every mass shooting incident. A few on the far left who feel secure in their district or Senate seat will call for new measures and introduce bills. However they always die, with the left blaming it on obstructionist Republicans and the NRA.

Reply to  ristvan
June 18, 2016 5:51 pm

something I learned in California-
no matter who says what, whoever ends up with the money won.
they are not losing.
guess who is losing
and losing
and losing
and losing
and can’t say FoF so they can never do anything but keep losing

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ristvan
June 18, 2016 9:54 pm

The watermelon approach to political dominance is a three- legged stool supported by Socialism, Environmentalism and Conspiracy! Three fundamentally weak supports yet formidable. Pretty ingenious actually.

R. Shearer
June 18, 2016 3:19 pm

In case you haven’t noticed, the Hillary Clinton investigation is going nowhere even though if her name were Rosenberg she would be indicted.

Reply to  R. Shearer
June 18, 2016 3:40 pm

You expected otherwise? With Obama in the White House? I must admit, for a time there, I was hopeful she would be indicted. But now, not a chance…barring some crime coming to light that is seen as being even more egregious (or possibly just the straw that broke the camels back).

Bubba Cow
Reply to  R. Shearer
June 18, 2016 3:44 pm
Reply to  Bubba Cow
June 18, 2016 4:05 pm

I hope so. I’m not optimistic though.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
June 18, 2016 4:47 pm

Judge Jeanine thinks its over. She says Hillary has the drop on Obama, that Obama sent her sensitive communication addressed to her sillyassserver. She can’t be indicted because the president knew and participated and is guilty.
Now, to me, that is a political defense, and not a legal defense. Indeed, when she brings it up as a defense, I expect Trey Gowdy to say, “Obama’s grand jury meets in February; you are indicted now.”
But in today’s post modern idiocy, a political defense may be all that is necessary. Public evidence is enough to indict her; it has gone on too long for the FBI to be just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bubba Cow
June 18, 2016 6:00 pm

There will be no prosecution. The “investigation” is probably at the stage of “how do we spin this into harmless territory?” Liberals are past masters at this. They actually feel entitled and immune to these “nuisances”. The bald-faced lying to Congress shows they have been schooled in Alinsky’s Rules. Indeed, both Clinton and Obama would appear to have a background in this stuff (Hilary did a thesis on it apparently).

Reply to  Bubba Cow
June 18, 2016 6:40 pm

I think Clinton knew Alinsky personally and corresponded with him regularly.

Reply to  R. Shearer
June 18, 2016 7:33 pm

Not so!
The Rosenbergs were not charged because they were Jewish! They were American citizens.
This occurred right after WW 2. Almost everyone was shocked and saddened by this event.
Just look at all of the Star’s of David on the head-stones in France and other U.S. military cemeteries and not just the WW 2 headstones but all. And this is why they didn’t get support.

Another Ian
Reply to  Barbara
June 19, 2016 2:50 am

Re Jewish contribution in WW2
Spike Milligan’s “War Histories” are often pretty irreverent but note his awareness of the extra risks for those of Jewish extraction in his unit

Reply to  Barbara
June 19, 2016 10:10 am

Of the first two graduates of the USMA, West Point, one was Jewish.

Reply to  Barbara
June 19, 2016 12:00 pm

Wikipedia: Simeon Magruder Levy, 1774-1807
USMA Class of Oct.12, 1802. A.K.A. as Simon Levy.
There is more information on Lt. Levy online.

Reply to  Barbara
June 19, 2016 12:56 pm

Wikipedia: Military history of Jewish Americans
“Jewish Americans have served in the United States armed forces dating back to before the Colonial era…”
Plenty of online information on this topic.

old construction worker
Reply to  R. Shearer
June 19, 2016 4:31 am

The real issue is with the Clinton’s foundations.

June 18, 2016 3:33 pm

I wonder how many IRS audits these “deniers” have enjoyed?

Dave O.
June 18, 2016 3:51 pm

The “black hole” of taxpayer funding. Taxpayers are contributing to their own demise.

June 18, 2016 3:55 pm

The problem of trying to create fear to use as a weapon is that, while it works on a large group of people, there is another group that it simply irritates.
This second group will eventually be motivated to remove the source of irritation.
Generally, once this second group is seen to be taking action, the first group will quietly support the second groups actions, since it is to their benefit.

Steve Lohr
June 18, 2016 4:26 pm

I am going to enter one other aspect that isn’t mentioned on this page but should be. It falls in line with funding of NGOs that chop away at the rural economies and thwart farming methods. If you follow the likes of the Centers for Biological Diversity, HSUS, Sierra Club, and even Audubon, the pressures their advocacy is putting on rural communities are huge. For instance, the rapid spread of the reintroduced wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountains, which were to be constrained at previously agreed population limits prior to the release, are now allowed to spread over all of the West. Any attempt to control the population is met with law suits from several well funded organizations. For some reason the courts fail to uphold the original intent and goals of the Endangered Species Act, which was to return management to the States. Same thing with grizzly bears. While the population is spreading rapidly and definitely having an impact on livestock growers, any suggestion of reinstating hunting seasons is met with strong opposition from the likes of the organizations mentioned above, and others. Same thing with certain pesticides, GMOs, etc. It isn’t a coincidence that the organizations creating the problems for agriculture are all of the same ilk. If you look into the “rewilding” philosopy, which is a new morph of the same crowd that spikes trees, burns down ski resorts and lumber mills and so on, you see the goal is the same, the tactics are new. They know they can use the ignorance of most people and with a few bogus “scientific” proclamations, which are repeated over and over until many accept their crap as truth. George Monbiot’s(sp?) Ted presentation on the wolf reintroduction is a good example; it’s pure chit. But, the effect of these organizations is to make it harder and harder to make a living directly from the land and clearly that is their goal.

Reply to  Steve Lohr
June 19, 2016 8:30 am

I have a relative who was/is into the “rewilding” philosophy. Said person still drives cars, uses the ER at the hospital when bad things happen, etc. This person simply ignores the reality of diseases that our ancestors had, the lack of food sources, and so forth. These people live in a fantasy world and want to drag everyone else in there, presumably so when bad things happen, there is someone to blame. It’s willful ignorance.

South River Independent
Reply to  Steve Lohr
June 19, 2016 9:22 pm

For a look at the impact of wolves, read the Real Wolf by Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves. Graves, who is an acquaintance of mine, also wrote The Wolf in Russia, based on his research there.

June 18, 2016 4:29 pm

This annoys me… I’m not on the list… Maybe because I’m an individual and not an “organization”?
Maybe I need to step up my game and found a foundation 😉

Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 18, 2016 11:36 pm

I suggest the E.M. Smith Sustainability Foundation whose mission statement goes something like, Our mission is to support the sustainability of the lifestyle to which E.M. Smith would like to become accustomed to.
Does that sound about right?

Reply to  H.R.
June 20, 2016 3:45 pm

That will get him funding and an indulgence, not a spot on the naughty list. 😉

June 18, 2016 4:40 pm

“Apparently, the extreme Left bought the Democratic Party in 2004, and openly boasted about it: “Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
Yes. As an observer to your country, it seems to me this power is being used, not only to “muzzle” “opponent” organizations, but also the larger judicial system. One can only wonder if the “delays” over Hilary C’s corruption investigations are similarly a delaying tactic.
What better than to delay outcomes of any investigation until after she is (potentially) in office, where, if she gets the boot, the VP can take over? They are left with a win/win – a democratic President any way you cut it!
Result: Climate alarmist rule ensured and enabled to continue.
If processes were not “delayed”, and facts were known, what is the chance HC would be out before the election? Leaving Sanders to battle it out with DT?

Reply to  Chris
June 19, 2016 5:15 am

“Deny, Delay, Distract, Delay… (repeat as necessary)” is a standard Dem tactic.

June 18, 2016 4:57 pm

I think the website gives an excellent insight into what is going on. I can vouch for a lot of the material as my own research has crossed with much of what is described there.
The site is also well referenced

Science or Fiction
Reply to  rogerthesurf
June 19, 2016 1:50 am

Thanks for the link – a frightening set of quotes.

June 18, 2016 4:59 pm

“In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.
This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing. “
Ask yourself what “nascent political and ideological threats were emerging” and why indeed “Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems.” Just what were these “ new languages, tools and answers” and I’ll suggest most strongly to you they were all the beginnings of post-normal science and its challenge to “traditional academic disciplines.” I’ll leave you to ponder why and just who that speaker is.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  observa
June 18, 2016 11:03 pm

The Pacific Institute (PI)?! Sure sounds like Gleick** to my ears. Then again, it could have been PI board member, aka Saint Stephen (Schneider) of Stanford, whose name remained on PI’s Board roster long past his death before date!
As for post-modernism … Since I belong to a cohort that preceded this obnoxious assault on reason – not to mention the scurrilous attack on common sense and clarity – there are a few that come to mind: Foucault, Derrida and Jerome Ravetz are three such adherents/expositors whose names spring to the forefront of my admittedly aging mind.
IMHO, their respective fog-inducing treatises have done very little to advance the cause of sense and/or sensibility.
**See, for example: Prophets of doom forecasting gloom … while Gleick re-enters his room

Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
June 19, 2016 4:08 am

Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy is not related to Gleick’s insitution. Also, 60 Plus Association is a separate organization, not a summary number.

Canadian Mike
June 18, 2016 5:31 pm

The only goal for the progressive left always has been and always will be power and wealth through government force. Anything that advances that goal is deemed “good”. Ethics, morality and law do not factor into that decision. Nixon threatens to use the IRS as a weapon and it is evil. Obama’s administration actually does it and it is good. A cancer researcher caught adjusting data and subverting peer review would see jail time. A climate scientist does it and it is good.

June 18, 2016 8:10 pm
Christopher Paino
Reply to  EricHa
June 20, 2016 9:45 am

Um… nice pictures?

June 18, 2016 8:33 pm

“Attorneys’ General Mischief just the Tip of the Iceberg?”
Yes the iceberg is Obama, Hillary, George Soros, and a host of others too numerous to list here.

Mike G
June 18, 2016 10:54 pm

Sadly, they can do whatever they please and the Supreme Court will vote 4 -4 on it.

Hocus Locus
June 19, 2016 5:38 am

By the year 2030 the iceberg will be extinct and we need a way to say “tip of the iceberg” that does not involve icebergs.

June 19, 2016 6:16 am

The coup d’etat is (nearly?) a fait accompli.

June 19, 2016 7:15 am

It seems to me if these legal battles turn into an outright war that the skeptics should have a legal advantage from the start.
For the most part the AGs supporting the Alarmist position will be going after private organizations or concerns. But if the skeptics go after the Alarmists most of their organizations are publically funded.
Thus while the Alarmists will have to make a case for getting past the probable clause protection stipulated in the 4th amendment in order to get the records and internal communications of private organizations or concerns, the skeptics will not have to deal with that hurdle when they go after the internal communications and records of the publically funded Alarmist organizations, concerns, and individuals.

June 19, 2016 8:01 am

There are no inductive inferences.
Karl Popper.

John Robertson
June 19, 2016 9:58 am

The criminality inherent in the systemic kleptocracy of this mass hysteria concerning plant food is no tip of the iceberg stuff, it is blatant, fully orchestrated by government agencies and designed with intent.
To redistribute wealth.
From those who have to those who want more,with the bureaucracies taking a huge cut for their “services”.
Taxing air,while being accountable to no one is the dream of all professional parasites.
Harsh words perhaps, however by their own actions you will know them.
The UN affiliated persons who advocate for solutions to a problem they cannot prove the existence of, propose theft from the many, which rewards these same freeloaders.
Follow the money.
Corruption in public offices is not the “Tip of the Iceberg” it is the new normal.
A kleptocracy cannot function without these necessary deceptions.
The parasites who feed upon the mass of humanity have swollen beyond all restraint.
Their host is suffering sever distress.

Tom Anderson
June 19, 2016 1:54 pm

These are mostly unformulated thoughts but I hope they are worth considering.
Mr. Halperin’s report struck me with how the historic shift of power within the federal system, from the states to the government in Washington, makes potential takeovers from whatever quarter much easier.
An unstated, perhaps never intended, benefit of the constitutionally established tension between the states and central government is to make it harder to capture the whole American government at a stroke. That wasn’t why we kept the independent states, of course, and there was a problem at the outset.
“States Rights,” which is what I’m bringing up, has a bad name today owing to the harm done by slavery and the subsequent racial oppression under states rights. When the founders set up the nation, slavery was the cancer in the body politic. The founders passed along finding a cure as a loaded compromise that blew up with the Civil War. And while the cure was far less evil than the affliction, a major legacy has been to assist Washington DC in displacing governance by the states, via the 14th Amendment and advancing custom or indifference.
It may be time to seriously reconsider “states rights” and work to redress the federal-state balance, even if that means going back to national first principles for a radical revision. To start with, there was only a handful of tasks the founders delegated to the federal government – such as defense, diplomacy, a monetary system, and interstate commerce. The states are empowered and able (if not always willing) to deal with the rest. With reduced central government, regional and coast-to-coast issues could be handled by conventions among the states.
I don’t know if that is possible; it very likely calls for constitutional amendment and revision, always a battle, but there are possibilities and great potential benefits. Naturally, stopping any illegitimate national power grab should be the first aim, but a necessary next step should be reconstituting the balance for a government more resistant to takeover.
Is anybody thinking about this?

Steve Lohr
Reply to  Tom Anderson
June 19, 2016 2:29 pm

I think most are thinking about the Frankenstein Monster election the US is facing.

June 19, 2016 2:57 pm

I’d like to think that the Manhattan Libertarian Party is included in that list because of my articles in their Serf City street corner tabloid they published until it just became too impractical . Several of my Logic of Liberty columns concerned the eKoStatist War on CO2 .

June 20, 2016 12:42 pm

Just imagine if we actually got someone in the White House that was willing to really investigate some of these ‘non-profits’ – freeze their assets, and climb up their hind-ends with a microscope?
Just think – how many years with no oversight? What would Greenpeace or the Sierra Club look like with their dirty little secrets bared to the world?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights