NUGENT: The once and always community organizer – Washington Times

Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NUGENT: The once and always community organizer – Washington Times.

By Ted Nugent

Really, Mr. President? Are you and your campaign team that pompous, arrogant and cash-strapped that you have sunk so low as to create a registry where die-hard Democrats getting married or celebrating an anniversary can request that family and friends make donations to your campaign in lieu of gifts? One would think the master of class warfare would at least know what class meant.

What’s next, Mr. Obama, asking funeral mourners to send donations to your campaign instead of the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society or other worthwhile charity?

As a professional community organizer scam artist, the president surely knows a thing or two about bilking others out of their cash, though he knows nothing about how money is actually earned.

If the registry caper doesn’t cause cash to pour in, the Democratic Party could always send Jesse Jackson to shake down a business or two by claiming they’re racist. Al-Not-So-Sharpton could show up with a bullhorn and arrange some marches and protests in support of Mr. Jackson’s shakedown. That’s the teamwork we expect from the Chicago gangsters.

While this shakedown scheme could be a veritable cash cow for the Democrats, there is also risk. The standard racist extortion ruse could backfire and force the president to have a beer in the White House’s Rose Garden with the slandered and maligned business owners. You may not want to go there again, Mr. Obama.

Jackson shakedown scam or not, the president’s cash machine could auction off a dinner with the president for a couple of bucks. Never mind – that’s been done.

There is always gold in the Hollywood Hills for the president to mine again and again as he needs it.

The movie star A-list is further politically left than Fidel Castro, and the thought of Mitt Romney winning the White House will cause glitzy movie stars to raise stacks and stacks of cash for Mr. Obama while promising to leave America for a bankrupt, socialist country if Mr. Romney is elected president.

The Occupy hippies could be requested to send in a portion of their unemployment checks or other government assistance to the Obama campaign. For donations of $100 or more, the Democratic Party could send the Occupy idiots a gold-painted brick to toss through the window of a Wall Street bank or other greedy, imperialistic American business (not Apple stores, though – even Occupy hippies need iPods and smartphones).

Last but not least, the endangered species labor unions could be asked to siphon off even more of the mandatory union dues from rank-and-file members to the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, many members now recognize that the labor movement’s practices for the past 50 years are some of the main reasons why many of them have seen their jobs disappear faster than you can repeat, “Say, it ain’t so, Joe Biden.”

Creating a wedding registry is scraping the bottom of the barrel even for this administration, and it knows a thing or two about the bottom of the barrel: That’s where you can find Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).

MILLOY: Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments? – Washington Times

The EPA was directed to set standards for radi...

The EPA was directed to set standards for radioactive materials under Reorganization Plan No. 3 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

MILLOY: Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments? – Washington Times.

Human trials vainly tried to prove air pollution is deadly

By Steve Milloy

Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?

JunkScience.com recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the results of tests conducted on 41 people who were exposed by EPA researchers to high levels of airborne fine particulate matter – soot and dust known as PM2.5.

If we are to believe the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 41 people, at least one of whom was already suffering from heart problems.

Ms. Jackson testified in September before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Just to clarify what Ms. Jackson meant by “sooner than you should,” deaths allegedly caused by PM2.5 are supposed to occur within a day or so of exposure.

Got that? Airborne dust and soot don’t make you sick, they just kill you – virtually upon exposure.

Underscoring this notion are the EPA’s two most recent rules affecting coal-fired power plants, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which the EPA claims will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths per year by reducing PM2.5 emissions.

Further underscoring the EPA’s view that PM2.5 kills is more of Ms. Jackson’s congressional testimony. At the September hearing, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, asked Ms. Jackson, “How would you compare [the benefits of reducing airborne PM2.5] to the fight against cancer?” Ms. Jackson said, “Yeah, I was briefed not long ago. If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.” Mr. Markey asked her to repeat what she had said. Ms. Jackson responded, “Yes, sir. If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy, we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”

Given that cancer kills about 570,000 Americans per year, according to the American Cancer Society, the EPA’s claim amounts to PM2.5 being responsible for roughly 25 percent of all deaths in the U.S. annually.

In support of this belief, the EPA has been issuing rules since 1997 to reduce PM2.5 in ambient air, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which will cost coal-fired electric utilities and their consumers more than $10 billion per year to implement.

The EPA takes the position that PM2.5 is so dangerous that it needs to set exceedingly stringent regulatory standards. The EPA’s PM2.5 air-quality standards are violated when PM2.5 levels exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter in ambient air during a 24-hour period, or when they exceed 15 micrograms per cubic meter on average over the course of a year – and the EPA is looking to further tighten these standards in 2013.

Returning to the agency’s human experimentation, how much PM2.5 did the study subjects inhale in the name of EPA science? One subject was exposed to 750 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter, or more than 21 times the EPA’s 24-hour standard. Seven subjects were exposed to levels 10 times greater than the 24-hour standard. No study subject was exposed to less than 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Remember, Ms. Jackson said PM2.5 doesn’t make you sick. It just kills you – quickly.

Although PM2.5 is allegedly so deadly, the experiments were stopped in only two cases. One was a 58-year old woman, who EPA experimented on despite her personal medical history of Stage 1 hypertension, premature atrial contractions, osteoarthritis, gall bladder removal and a family history of heart disease (her father had a fatal heart attack at age 57). Her experiment was stopped when she experienced atrial fibrillation. In the other case, the woman experienced no clinical effects, but the EPA nevertheless stopped her experiment after researchers detected a momentary increase in heart rate.

EPA particulate matter assertions notwithstanding, PM2.5 killed none of the study subjects, and the two experiments that were stopped can likely be explained by causes other than PM2.5.

You might think that the EPA would have shared these “surprising” results with the public and Congress, particularly as they seem to contradict the agency’s claims about the lethality of PM2.5. But you would be wrong.

The EPA human experiments were conducted from January 2010 to June 2011, ending more than three months before Ms. Jackson’s congressional testimony, which contained no mention of these results – just dramatic claims of PM2.5’s lethality.

EPA researchers who conducted the experiments published the case study of the 58-year woman in the government journal Environmental Health Perspectives in which they casually disregard the woman’s pre-existing health conditions and blame her atrial fibrillation on PM2.5. They also failed to disclose the existence – let alone the results – of the other 40 experiments.

The researchers’ conduct is also unethical given that the results of the other experiments – two-thirds of which involved higher PM2.5 levels – contradict their conclusions about the 58-year old woman.

What about the agency’s conduct? The EPA’s long-established view is that PM2.5 is ultrahazardous, yet it exposed humans to very high and potentially near-instantly lethal levels of a deadly pollutant. In light of the EPA’s own safety standard, how far is the agency’s conduct from the horrific experiments conducted by the Nazi concentration camp doctor Josef Mengele and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments? What should we make of the agency hiding its results from the public and Congress?

It seems that the only way out for the EPA is to acknowledge the reality that, in fact, PM2.5 is not so bad for you after all.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009).