By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--November 3, 2017
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Never forget that government is the secular left's god, and they believe they have a divine right to be in control of it - especially the levers of government they consider especially important in bringing the private sector to heel. The Environmental Protection Agency falls into that category, so it's sacrilege to the left that someone like Scott Pruitt - who doesn't believe the EPA should be used to flog and harass industry - is now its chief.
That's the equivalent, to them, of making Anton LaVey your pastor.Reform in Washington is always difficult, but at the Environmental Protection Agency it’s also dangerous. Since the Trump Administration took office, the agency has investigated more than 70 credible threats against EPA staffers, with a disproportionate number menacing Administrator Scott Pruitt and his family. The EPA responded by beefing up his security detail, but Mr. Pruitt’s political opponents are now trying to hold these warranted precautions against him. Mr. Pruitt has received more than five times as many threats as his predecessor, Gina McCarthy. These include explicit death threats. Some have referenced Mr. Pruitt’s home address. Federal law enforcement has determined that some of those threatening Mr. Pruitt are likely capable of carrying out acts of violence. EPA security has already caught suspects prowling around the administrator’s neighborhood. Mr. Pruitt would doubtless prefer the absence of threats to the presence of security. But his critics have suggested he’s part of the problem. Mr. Pruitt is a “pallid, oily anti-environment corporate shill,” SFGate columnist Mark Morford wrote last week, and “when you send death threats to the world and all who live on her, the world will, quite naturally, send them right back.”
Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Grace Napolitano (Calif.) have called for the inspector general to launch an investigation into Mr. Pruitt’s security measures. The expenditures “constitute potential waste or abuse of taxpayer dollars,” they wrote in an Oct. 4 letter. The duo also claimed that “there is no apparent security threat against the Administrator to justify such a security detail or expenditures.”Breaking news: Democrats finally identify a non-defense government expenditure they don't support! Protecting the life of a Republican EPA administrator is simply too much for the poor, put-upon taxpayers to be expected to pay for, and these Democrats are always looking to lighten the load of taxpayers! Actually, I'd like to suggest an idea that would solve the problem for everyone: Get rid of the EPA entirely. That would save lots of money, a lot more than it's costing to protect Pruitt against threats, and it would also have the welcome effect of freeing American businesses from the most abusive and meddlesome agency in the entire federal government, which is really saying something. The EPA's annual budget is more than $8 billion. That would only make a small dent in a $600 billion deficit or a $4.1 trillion overall federal budget, but every little bit helps. In the meantime, however, of course the EPA administrator deserves protection against threats, and it's beyond appalling for Democrat members of Congress to a) complain about the cost and the necessity of it; and b) to deny that there have been real threats when federal law enforcement officials confirm that the threats are very real. I realize our political culture has become more partisan than ever, but I don't think it's too much to ask that we agree on the need to protect the lives of our public officials, regardless of party. I guess that's too much to ask Peter DeFazio and Grace Napolitano, though. Lovely people.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.