Friday, June 12, 2009

For President Obama, Energy Is More Important Than Climate Change [Fraud] « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE
That is, 3,066 “Obama” whitehouse.gov pages talk of “energy” but not of “global warming”; and not even once “Obama” pages mention “global warming” but not “energy”.

Just out of curiosity: only 4 “Obama” pages talk of “climate change” but not of “energy”.

One can safely assume that for President Obama, global warming/climate change is a sideshow to the far, far bigger issue of the future of energy. Therefore, when and if a choice will have to be made between “energy” and “global warming”, in all likelihood the current US Administration will choose “energy”.
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republicans : Press Release :: Intimidation Has No Place in Government, Republicans Tell Waxman, Markey
WASHINGTON – Intimidation and abuse of witnesses who disagree with ruling Democrats must not be permitted in the Energy and Commerce Committee, 20 of the panel’s Republicans told Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., Friday. At issue is the curious case of an energy company executive who, within hours of challenging the cost analysis of Waxman-Markey global warming legislation, found himself the target of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission inquiry requested that day by Chairman Markey.

“Our committee has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that when we exercise our constitutional powers, we do it fairly and in a manner that engenders public confidence and leads to the truth. When citizens appear voluntarily before this committee to testify, we expect them to tell the truth,” the Republican lawmakers wrote. “Our witnesses, in turn, have every right to expect that in exchange for their honesty with us, they will not be subjected to sanction, retribution and vengeance simply because the facts and opinions they offer do not square with those of the committee’s members. Exercising the power of the majority requires a special responsibility to protect witnesses.”

No comments: