Bloomberg Targets Coal Industry With $30 Million Donation To Sierra Club

1 Comment

This is from Deneen Borelli.

The United Mine Workers Union and its employees

endorsed and voted for Obama.

Now they are getting screwed by Obama as thanks for their blind support.

The progressive mob is driving the coal industry into bankruptcy.

President Obama is leading the charge by having the Environmental Protection Agency issue regulation after regulation targeting coal-fired power plants.

Now billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is adding his significant financial weight in an effort to kill the coal industry. Bloomberg recently announced Bloomberg Philanthropies is donating $30 million to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign.

Bloomberg’s latest donation adds to the $50 million he gave to the Sierra Club in 2011.

According to the Sierra Club, its Beyond Coal grassroots campaign is responsible for closing 187 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and with its new funds, its goal is to shut down half of the remaining units by 2017.

The impact of the progressive mob’s anti-coal effort is causing massive transformation in the way electricity is generated. In 2014, 39 percent of electricity was from coal, down from 49 percent in 2007.

The drop in coal use has caused a loss of 50,000 jobs in the coal industry from 2008-2012, billions of dollars in losses in market capitalization of coal mining stocks and two bankruptcies.

In an interview with OneNewsNow, I commented on Bloomberg’s donation:

“Bloomberg is a typical progressive elite,” he says. “He’s using his fortune on a feel-good exercise while ignoring the consequences of his actions. The Sierra Club has a tremendous amount of money and is out to bankrupt the coal industry – and that’s going to have a devastating impact on the lives and livelihood of Americans.”

No industry can survive the combined assault of the progressive mob.
Read more at×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017



AFL-CIO tries to regroup as American support for unions declines

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

One reason for the unions decline is union officials greed.

Workers are tried of paying dues to finance the union leaders lavish

trips and life style.


It was an unexpected and blunt admission by one of the nation’s most powerful labor leaders: “We are in crisis, and we have to do things differently,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told USA Today last week.

His candid assessment heralds a change in strategy for the one-time labor giant.  It is now seeking to partner with other left-leaning organizations such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club to bolster its influence, and its lagging membership.

The idea would have been heretical in an earlier time when such partnerships meant solidarity under the union label and the obligation of union dues.

Under Trumka’s plan, there is no expectation that new AFL-CIO partners would join the federation.

“Hopefully, sometime,” Trumka told the paper. “First they’ll be partners at the local level. They’ll actually be in the structure of the local labor movement in some places but it will vary.” And as for paying union dues?

“Well, some may, some may not,” Trumka said.

If the strategy smacks of desperation, Cato Institute Senior fellow Chris Edwards says it should come as no surprise.

“Americans have rejected unionism,” Edwards says. “Particularly young people. If you look at the overall unionization rate, it’s seven percent but among young people, it’s just four percent which is remarkable.”

There is no single reason for labor’s precipitous decline. Technology and automation have decimated the ranks of blue-collar assembly workers.So has globalization and abundant cheap labor in the rapidly industrialized third world.

But some of labor’s wounds are self-inflicted. As it has turned to the public sector to make up for its private sector losses, unions have won increasingly generous pay and pension benefits. Those pension benefits are part of the reason that Detroit was forced into bankruptcy this summer, and why other cities are nearing the precipice of financial insolvency.

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday documented the predicament of Chicago, where nine of ten city employees are unionized.  “Chicago has chronically under funded its pensions,” The Journal said.

Chicago’s pension liability grows year by year and reveals a wound that unions inflicted on themselves: electing Democrats to office who legislate favors for the unions which, in turn, finance the campaigns of their legislative enablers.

That cycle recently resulted in Mayor Rahm Emanuel laying off 2,100 Chicago education employees – 1,000 teachers among them.


Read more:


Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 1

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information population.

A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the guide was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

Their very best arguments

According to the guide, “three key themes drive the most powerful arguments for gun violence prevention:”

ONE: The serious personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

Elsewhere in the guide, the point is made that “40% of respondents report that they or someone they know personally has been a victim of gun violence.” The trouble for the authors and their audience is that many of the people who become a victim of violence, or know someone who has been, rightfully conclude that only they, and no one else, are responsible for their own security. Indeed, it is precisely the exposure to violence that leads many people to become first-time gun owners.

TW0: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities.

We’ve looked, and still haven’t found that particular “right” in the constitution yet. It certainly isn’t listed next to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THREE: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe.

This point is stressed again, and described as a “key message”:

The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons.

This “key message” – the notion that today’s weapons are different is, as you likely know, afalse notion.

The truth, of course, is that military-style weapons have always dominated the civilian firearms marketplace – from the muskets that fought off Red Coats and brought home supper, to the pistols and rifles that started on the Civil War battlefield and eventually helped conquer the West, to the rifles that came home with Dough Boys and GIs in the World Wars. “More powerful?” Another false notion. World War I and World War II-era rifles were every bit as powerful as today’s military look-alike civilian models.

Elsewhere in the guide they address this issue again, stating that “we have to make clear to people that this isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle.” The writers know that people will identify less with the anti-gun rights crowd if they sound like they’re trying to take away grandpa’s hunting rifle. The lesson for the good guys is this – grandpa’s hunting rifle was very likely a military rifle bought as surplus from World War I or World War II, so if those rifles are ok to have around, today’s modern sporting rifles should be any different.

The guide also notes that claims of law enforcement support for their policies is “crucial,” and asserts the “fact that policies advocated by the NRA put law enforcement officials at risk seriously weakens the NRA’s arguments.”

They couldn’t have been too pleased, then, when a 2013 survey of nearly 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers showed that an overwhelming majority of America‘s policemen and women do NOT support Obama’s gun control agenda.

The authors of the guide also admit that the question of whether or not they will succeed in fooling people depends on the audience:

On the gun violence issue – as on most public issues – it pays to know as much as possible about who you are talking to.

The weight and power of the three key themes we have mentioned varies substantially by audience.

…[W]hen talking to men, it is important to know that they are much more motivated by protecting people from “gun crime” than preventing “gun violence.” Women are motivated by both.

Clearly, in spreading falsehoods like those above as “key messages,” they must think their audience is a fairly ignorant bunch.

If these are their most powerful arguments, it’s no wonder that they continue to lose.

How to deal with the NRA

The authors have a LOT to say about the NRA (an entire chapter, in fact) – including things they would never get caught admitting publicly:

When we are communicating with the general public, we need to be aware of the fact that, beyond our base, people have a positive impression of the organization and its role.


Whether to spend much time talking about the NRA depends upon whether we are talking to our base (where an NRA focus is often worthwhile) or broader audiences (where an NRA focus is far less likely to be helpful).


“The NRA is seen as a mainstream organization by most Americans although elements of our base see its leadership and organizational stance as extreme. Engaging the NRA as if it is one side of a political fight is counterproductive because it feeds into a view of the debate over gun violence as an unengaging interest group conflict.

It is far better to discuss the NRA in terms of the role its officials play in preventing people and communities from protecting themselves from the terrible personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

“The issue is how to talk about the NRA with different audiences, not how frequently to discuss the NRA.

Because of the organization’s name and identity, it is more powerful – especially when talking to the base – to discuss the specific NRA rather than the generic “gun lobby.”

I haven’t figured out how they expect people to argue that the NRA is “preventing people and communities from protecting themselves” with a straight face, but it is clear from the past nine months that their target audience hasn’t got this part dialed in all that well just yet.

Gotta make it scary sounding and scary looking

Perhaps the most comical line in the guide is this:

Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.

Two pages later, they prove their own claim of having logic on their side wrong by encouraging the use of “powerful images” rather than “facts and statistics.”

Yes, you read that right. They are encouraging their audience to argue on their (supposed) weakest ground – emotion – rather than their (supposed) strongest footing – logic. Kind of puts the whole claim about winning the logical debate to bed, doesn’t it?

The point, it is clear, is to scare the weak-minded who have no use for facts and statistics. Consider a few more quotes:

Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts.


It’s not helpful to try to drown your audience in a flurry of facts and statistics.


It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.

This idea is not a new one. In fact, Josh Sugarmann, who currently heads the anti-gun rights organization Violence Policy Center, wrote about how these groups planned to take advantage over public confusion over these guns way back in the 1980’s:

“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

“Language Do’s and Don’ts” designed to fool the uninformed

Interspersed throughout the document are talking points designed to educate anti-gun rights extremists on how they can tailor their message to fool their audience into thinking they want something other than to ban guns, abolish self-defense rights, etc. We don’t have room to list them all, but following are just two examples:

DO talk about “preventing gun violence. DON’T talk about “gun control.”

(They’re synonyms, see, but some people don’t get that.)

DO advocate for “stronger” gun laws. DON’T use the term “stricter” gun laws.

(We want gun control laws as strict as can be, but again, it’s about fooling the uninformed.)

The goal line

In the wake of the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary, many wondered why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again.

The guide provides the answer.

Here are some of the facts that met that test in the research:

• There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.
• There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.
• Police and law enforcement officers are more at risk, due to the availability and power of new weapons.
Reinforcing example: Police forces in places like Chicago and Miami are outfitting officers with assault weapons so that they aren’t outgunned by criminals.

Leaving aside the point that their “facts” aren’t facts at all (except for the one about police forces in Chicago – a place with the type of gun control laws they want to impose on the rest of the nation – just to keep up with the criminals illegally carrying illegal firearms), the evidence is clear:

In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

In the next chapter, we’ll discuss how the guide coldly advocates using the “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” of crime victims to advance their political agenda (including an entire chapter on how to capitalize on active killer incidents), expose why anti-gun rights extremists are trying to hard to make the gun control discussion about race, and reveal how talking points given in the guide are being used by President Obama and his allies in the anti-gun rights lobby each and every day.


Coal Plant Scrapped with the Help of Sierra Club Official Who Wanted to ‘Crucify’ Polluters

Leave a comment

This is from Political  Outcast.

It is time to kick these tree hugging scumbags to the curb.

Most of the tree huggers are green on the outside are Commie Red inside,

The lack of new power plants will affect our ability to obtain power.

Watch for major price increases and blackouts as coal-fired plants close.

Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced that it was cancelling the project. Why? The EPA shutdown the project. It’s the goal of the Obama Administration, using the cover of the renegade Environmental Protection Agency, to shut down all coal-fired power plants in the United States. “Economists had projected that in the first 5 years of construction and operation the project would create . . . 1,300 direct and 2,600 indirect jobs.”

The EPA is being lobbied by environmental groups that have been big donors to the Democrats. The Sierra Club is one of the biggest impediments for home-grown energy production and is behind the goal of shutting down coal-fired power plants.

Up until 2012, Al Armendariz was an official with the EPA until he revealed the real objective of the Gestapo-like actions of the agency.

Armendariz resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency at the end of April in 2012 when “it came to light that he had suggested that the agency ‘crucify’ polluters to deter others. After the end of his EPA tenure, he joined the Sierra Club to campaign for the end of coal as an energy source for electricity. Here are his full comments from a 2010 speech caught on tape:

“It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean — they’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. Then that little 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 complying with the law. Find people who are not complying with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and make examples of them.”

The Nazis did the same thing.

The word “decimation” comes from the Latin word decem for ten. It was “a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers.” Decimation means “removal of a tenth.” See the film The Paths of Glory (1957) starring Kirk Douglas for a modern-day portrayal of the practice.

With the end of the Corpus Christi project, who will want to invest in long-term utility projects using coal? Who will pay for this? You and I will with higher prices and the possibility of no electricity.

While the EPA distanced itself from Armendariz’s comments, the Sierra Club saw them as a worthwhile method to attack the coal industry that most likely powers the homes of its members as well as the home of Mr. Armendariz.

Senator Inhofe, in a sarcastic response to Armendariz’s new post at the Sierra club, had this to say:

“I would like to congratulate Dr. Armendariz for his new job as a key player in the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. 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.”

What do these people think will power our homes in the future? Wind? Solar? Fairy dust?

Read more:

The Guitars Gently Weep

Leave a comment


The story below is from PJ Media.
These raids are a payback to Obama’s union buddies.
Gibson was in Michigan a state run by union thugs.
They went to Tennessee a right to work state.

In 1968, Eric Clapton played a Gibson Les Paul guitar on the White Album’s “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” by the Beatles.  Other guitar greats like B.B. King, Slash, Alex Lifeson, Jimmy Page, Pete Townsend and Keith Richards have all used Gibson Guitars.  You would think the Department of Justice has higher priorities than investigating a guitar company, but you’d be wrong.
By now, nearly everyone knows that the Department of Justice raided Gibson Guitars regarding the use of certain wood that may have violated the Lacey Import Act.   At issue is Gibson’s import of unfinished, as opposed to finished, rosewood and ebony.  FBI raids effectively shut down the business and idled workers.  Gibson has since reopened, but the federal action raises issues of over-criminalization of business behavior.
Not surprisingly, the legislation to criminalize the use of ebony and rosewood in the Gibson guitars came from the usual suspects on the Left.  But it also had support among American forestry business interests seeking to erect barriers to competition from overseas wood.
The craziest part of the Lacey Act is that it allows Gibson to import finished guitar pieces made from the same wood.  But if Americans working in Tennessee cut, sand and varnish unfinished wood, then call in the FBI raiding parties.  The law was amended in 2008 to reach this state with the support of the Bush administration.
This is the sort of illogical madness, fueled by special interest meddling in the economy that has most Americans rightfully disgusted with Washington.
Since the Gibson raids, a bipartisan group of Tennessee congressional leaders have sought to amend the Lacey Import Act and make the law more sensible.  Reactionary opposition to the amendments reveals who is ultimately behind the policies which led to federal raids on Gibson Guitar: the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and Greenpeace.
The lawmakers seeking to amend the Lacey Act “are basically gutting the law as it is currently enacted,” said Lisa Handy, senior policy adviser for the Environmental Investigation Agency, told the Tennessean.
The “Environmental Investigation Agency?”  The convicted felon George Soros helps to fund  the Environmental Investigation Agency, a private organization.  This group has agitated for action against Gibson Guitar, and of course the Eric Holder run Justice Department delivered.
It would be interesting to see all the third party communications to the U.S. Attorney’s office as well as the Environmental and Natural Resources Division (Environmental Crimes Section) regarding Gibson Guitar.  It is hard to believe that these raids didn’t have their genesis in Soros-funded agitation from EIA or one of the other green groups.  These are public records and available to people who ask, assuming the Most Transparent Administration in History complies with the law, and assuming someone files a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ.
This creeping over-criminalization of business activity is an assault on American liberty.  Thousands of actions now constitute possible crimes worthy of criminal investigation, pushing the limits of absurdity.  They include shipping lobster tails in plastic bags, failing to prune your bushes and creating odd art.  These laws remove an important traditional element of a crime – a criminal state of mind.  By eliminating the requirement that crimes should have criminal intent, regular everyday activity can land Americans in jail.
If Indianapolis 500 winner Bobby Unser is caught in a deadly snowstorm and inadvertently snowmobiles into federal wilderness land – it’s a crime.  If Gibson ordered finished rosewood or ebony guitar parts made by Indian workers, no problem.  If the wood came unfinished, however, it’s a crime.
Our country has become a paradise for lawyers, especially well connected ones, and a minefield for the ingenious.
Of course Gibson Guitar is run by an outspoken conservative — Henry Juszkiewicz.  Whether or not that has something to do with DOJ’s zeal nobody knows.  One thing is for sure, Gibson is going to have to pay a lot of money to lawyers familiar with the Lacey Act.  Juszkiewicz has teamed up with Right On Crime to roll back excessive criminalization of the economy, something sure to further endear him to the agitators behind the case against Gibson.  With unemployment parked at nine percent, ideologically driven overreach that hurts American business is the last thing voters want to see.


%d bloggers like this: