Following President-elect Trump’s brilliant choice of Ben Carson to lead HUD, a job for which Carson has zero preparation, zero experience, and zero knowledge, Mr. Trump has surpassed himself by choosing Scott Pruit to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
Here is what Wikipedia said about the man who is going to protect our environment.
Read slowly, to have a full appreciation of the man:
In 2012, Attorney General Pruitt kept Oklahoma out of the mortgage settlement reached by 49 other states with five national lenders, with Pruitt citing differing philosophies of government.
In 2013, Pruitt brought a lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act.
In 2013, Pruitt supported the Oklahoma legislature’s bid to join four other states trying to restrict medical abortions by limiting or banning off-label uses of drugs, via House Bill 1970. After the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the abortion law was unconstitutional, Pruitt requested that the United States Supreme Court review the case. Pruitt was unhappy with the United States Supreme Court’s rejection of the Oklahoma case.
Pruitt was pleased with the decision of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in June 2014. Pruitt, an acquaintance of the Green family – the founders of Hobby Lobby, filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of their position, that the owners of privately held companies need not provide their employees with birth control, if that goes against their beliefs. In a statement, Pruitt noted, “The founders established a Constitution to protect Americans’ religious freedom from an intrusive federal government. Today’s ruling solidifies the principle that our religion is not a silent practice confined to the four walls of a church, but it is an opportunity to live out our faith in the public square.”
In June 2013, Pruitt maintained that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a provision of DOMA, a federal law that denied federal benefits to homosexual married couples did not affect Oklahoma’s laws on the subject.
Pruitt expressed his dissatisfaction when a federal court ruled that Oklahoma’s voter-approved amendment in 2004 to the Oklahoma State Constitution that defined marriage as only the union of one man and one woman was a violation of the U.S. Constitution in 2014.
In October 2014, Pruitt criticized the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Oklahoma’s appeal in the definition of marriage case.
On March 6, 2014, Pruitt joined a lawsuit targeting California’s prohibition on the sale of eggs laid by caged hens kept in conditions more restrictive than those approved by California voters. Less than a week later, Pruitt announced that he would investigate the Humane Society of the United States, one of the principal proponents of the California law.
In October 2014, a California judge dismissed the lawsuit rejecting the arguments of Pruitt and the other attorneys-general concerning California’s Proposition 2, a 2008 ballot initiative. Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled that Oklahoma and the other states lacked legal standing to sue on behalf of their residents and that Pruitt and other plaintiffs were representing the interests of egg farmers, rather than “a substantial statement of their populations.”
In November 2014, after the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the enforcement of two abortion-related laws until after their constitutionality was litigated (which could take up to a year or more), Pruitt’s office communicated the Attorney General’s intention to support their implementation and enforcement.
Pruitt has also sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of Oklahoma utilities unwilling to take on the burdens of additional regulation of their coal-fired plants, and criticized the agency in a congressional hearing. This is one of several lawsuits Pruitt has filed against the EPA. All of Pruitt’s anti-EPA suits to date have failed.
On December 6, 2014, the New York Times reported that Pruitt copied the text of an energy lobbyist’s letter to the Environmental Protection Agency and pasted it on official Oklahoma state letterhead and sent it to the EPA arguing that the EPA wasn’t properly measuring pollution from natural gas drilling in Oklahoma.
In April 2015, news reports indicated Pruitt believed distribution of religious material to public school students was constitutional.
After the organization “Oklahomans for Health” collected the legally required number of signatures for a referendum ballot on the legalization of medical marijuana, in August 2016, Scott Pruitt’s office moved to rewrite the ballot title, but not in time for the November 2016 election. The measure will appear on the 2018 ballot.
Scott Pruitt, a man who hates the EPA and cares nothing for the environment — a climate-change denier — the perfect Trump choice to protect our environment.
Dear right-wing friends: Re. Trump: You bought him; you own him.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
It’s so odd, maybe Trump intends to embarrass Pruitt by making him forced to work against his instincts.??? Fingers crossed again!
LikeLike
The American public has spoken.
LikeLike
Trump is sufficiently loathsome to discredit himself without any need for embellishment.
Nonetheless the Washington ComPost is always using lies and omissions to make the neoliberal Democrats seem better than the neoliberal Republicans.
The Compost says that Trump boasted, “That he convinced Carrier to keep 1,100 jobs in the U.S. However, United Technologies had never planned to move 350 of those jobs to Mexico, and still plans to cut 700 jobs from another factory.”
This is not news. It was never concealed or glossed over. It was public knowledge from the start.
I do not defend Trump. He screwed Indiana taxpayers, and his “saving” of jobs was only temporary. Moreover you can bet that Carrier and / or United Technologies extorted new concession from its workers in order to let them (temporarily) keep their jobs (before those jobs too are moved to Mexico).
My problem is with the pretense that Democrats are better than Republicans. In truth they are two heads of the same monstrosity; the same duopoly. Anyone who thinks that war, RomneyCare, neoliberalism, and the Big Lie become okay when Democrats push them is a sucker.
LikeLike
I mentioned the Washington ComPost because they too ran with this story.
LikeLike
I don’t know if any of you saw this, but this is gold
LikeLike
I love the way people who dont conform to the sheeple are called, “climate deniers”.
It has a nice ring to it and sounds like someone stupid and dumb.
Here you have a bunch of researchers whom are all over the place and whom at the end of day have a vested interest in this HOAX. Yeah call me whatever you want.
The earth has trillions of years in existence, anyone looking at data for the last few hundred is a charlatan. Another example of how moronic the left is.
LikeLike
No Danny, the researchers are not all over the place. The vast majority of climatologists agree on two things:
1. The earth is warming
2. Human CO2 emissions are largely at fault.
Only three disagree with that view:
1. Breitbart
2. Trump
3. Damn fools who will believe anything #1 and #2 tell them, i.e. the “sheeple” you talk about.
LikeLike
To all those who claim that global anthropogenic climate change is a myth, I ask: what is the motive for this supposed myth?
Who profits? How does the “myth” widen the gap between the rich and the rest? I mean actually, not potentially or hypothetically.
If you want to convince people that something is a myth, then you must be able to pinpoint the MONETARY PROFIT that is facilitated, sustained, and legitimized by the “myth.” You must be able to expose the money trail. You must show how the “myth” widens the gap between the rich and the rest, or gives special advantages to some groups of people.
If you cannot provide these things, then your comments about climate change are meaningless.
You may claim that, “A bunch of researchers all over the place have a vested interest in this hoax.” But which researchers? What is their vested interest?
Clearly there is monetary profit involved in denying climate change. Denial justifies “business as usual.”
I will bet you that if people were honest, then no matter where they lived in the world, they would admit that yes, their climate has changed during the last 20 years. They have seen it personally. Depending on the place, their climate has become wetter or drier, hotter or colder, more stormy or less stormy. Where I live, we just had the hottest and driest October on record. And each year sets a new record.
In my computer I keep a digital log of every single day’s temperature and precipitation, in order to better manage my utility bills. 365 days a year. Clearly things are changing.
The good news is that mankind has the intelligence and technology to overcome all these problems.
The bad news is that mankind is too stupid to question the Big Lie. Therefore things will continue to worsen.
LikeLike
It encourages austerity for the masses while the rich consume more and more. The one per cent benefit because the 99% live with less and accept that it’s the right thing to do for humanity and the planet. It widen’s the gap. It’s spawned tiny homes, minimalists and kids that don’t drive etc. Strive to have less it’s good for you and the planet. AGW part of the BIG LIE
LikeLike
But the Democrats are just as bad, right?
Oh, and GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security
But the Democrats are just as bad. 🙂
LikeLike
Billions of dollars of funding for something that can only be made worst by government morons, thats what.
How do you suppose medicine is where it is? Government intervention, thats what.
Earth has gone through ages of warming and cooling the last few trillion years.
I doubt that this co2 nonsense will do anything about it. Even if it did, do you really thinm the government will make it better? I guess you havent looked at the last few hundred things theyve touched.
The co2 issue will likely be resolved by the privates anyway. Yet, it is the hypocrite liberals that fight uber and the likes.
The irony is that these are the so called “progressives”. The hypocricy.
LikeLike
Hey Danny, the Earth did not exist “the last few trillion years”.
Are you also contending that radiometric age dating is a hoax?
LikeLike