PDA

View Full Version : EPA Waives Fees for 92% of Liberal Groups, Applies Them to Conservative Groups




sailingaway
05-14-2013, 09:41 PM
http://f05cff0b8dde4b14dcbb-39ae6c0e90f9ab066a65187af475ed6d.r73.cf2.rackcdn.c om/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Sackett-Protest_EPA-Wetlands-Declaration.jpg



Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Conservative Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.

CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.”

And we wouldn’t want the public gaining a conservative understanding of gov ops and activities. Now would we. Liberal institutions consider good government synonymous with liberalism. The transparency defenses they put into place only apply to liberals pursuing liberal causes.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/epa-waives-fees-for-92-of-liberal-groups-applies-them-to-conservative-groups/

BAllen
05-14-2013, 10:08 PM
More proof that everyone looks out for their own interests, and fuck everybody else. Doesn't matter if it's a church that wants to deny freedoms to drinkers, smokers, and gamblers, or gays who want to force churches to marry them, or marxists who want to silence the speech and rights of their opponents. It goes on and on. Sad thing is, they can't see the solution is in the Constitution.

Keith and stuff
05-14-2013, 10:18 PM
Did you get that from an email? I don't see a link :)

TaftFan
05-14-2013, 10:23 PM
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/epa-waives-fees-for-92-of-liberal-groups-applies-them-to-conservative-groups/

sailingaway
05-14-2013, 10:37 PM
Did you get that from an email? I don't see a link :)

oops!

Keith and stuff
05-14-2013, 10:38 PM
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/epa-waives-fees-for-92-of-liberal-groups-applies-them-to-conservative-groups/
Thanks. It is hard to look up on this device. Or I'm lazy. You decide.

FrankRep
05-14-2013, 11:06 PM
EPA Accused of Playing Favorites with Green, Conservative Groups: Another Scandal for the White House?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/epa-allegedly-playing-favorites-with-fee-requests-another-white-house-scandal/

J_White
05-14-2013, 11:53 PM
well, the Obama administration is using its dogs wisely.

phill4paul
05-14-2013, 11:57 PM
More proof that everyone looks out for their own interests, and fuck everybody else. Doesn't matter if it's a church that wants to deny freedoms to drinkers, smokers, and gamblers, or gays who want to force churches to marry them, or marxists who want to silence the speech and rights of their opponents. It goes on and on. Sad thing is, they can't see the solution is in the Constitution.

Gays don't want churches to marry them. They want the same Federal and state benefits as 'traditional' couples that enjoy the benefit of private liscensure through the church.

bolil
05-14-2013, 11:57 PM
Doesn't even fucking matter. ONE PARTY ONE LAW.

And hopefully one united resistance.

FTP, FTF, FTCIA, FTFBI, and mostly fuck a snitch.

BAllen
05-15-2013, 12:46 AM
Gays don't want churches to marry them. They want the same Federal and state benefits as 'traditional' couples that enjoy the benefit of private liscensure through the church.

Oh, really? Then why was there a suit brought against a church that refused to marry them?

phill4paul
05-15-2013, 01:27 AM
Oh, really? Then why was there a suit brought against a church that refused to marry them?

Because TWO individuals choose to bring a lawsuit? None of the gays I know really give a shit about the church marrying them. And please give me a link to your specific reference.

sailingaway
05-15-2013, 09:45 AM
Because TWO individuals choose to bring a lawsuit? None of the gays I know really give a shit about the church marrying them. And please give me a link to your specific reference.

the thing is that that is where the resistance comes from. There ARE 'activist' gays who will embarrass people and impose on private views in a religious settings, like those who went to a Morman temple in CA and started making out in front of the families at the service, when OUT OF STATE Mormans (in other words, not those in this temple) had funded support for Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8 because I couldn't choose to have government treat citizens differently, but I think forcing religions or using their property to do something they oppose is wrong too. Religious freedom is another important right.

That is why Ron's solution is the best, and I wish evangelical conservatives would wake up to the fact that focusing on the principles will protect the rights they need, at the expense only of allowing others the rights they need as well, without infringement. but those church aimed demonstrations are precisely what terrorizes people who want to raise their own children with their own beliefs in their own religion with its own sacraments.

jkr
05-15-2013, 10:18 AM
FASCISM

can wez haz r cuntree bak nowz?!?!

TonySutton
05-15-2013, 10:20 AM
Oh, really? Then why was there a suit brought against a church that refused to marry them?

link?

sailingaway
05-15-2013, 10:27 AM
Barton tweeted that he was going to be asking the EPA questions at some hearing or event tomorrow and wanted questions. I tweeted him this article and asked him to ask about this.

Brian4Liberty
05-15-2013, 10:34 AM
equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy

Lol. Built in contradiction. "We will equally apply favoritism". :rolleyes:

Sola_Fide
05-15-2013, 11:10 AM
More proof that everyone looks out for their own interests, and fuck everybody else. Doesn't matter if it's a church that wants to deny freedoms to drinkers, smokers, and gamblers, or gays who want to force churches to marry them, or marxists who want to silence the speech and rights of their opponents. It goes on and on. Sad thing is, they can't see the solution is in the Constitution.

How can a church "deny freedoms" to anyone??? Churches are voluntary institutions. If you don't like the rules then you leave. It's nothing like government.

Carson
05-15-2013, 03:57 PM
They are always saying, "If your not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

Carson
05-15-2013, 04:31 PM
"They hate those cans!"

phill4paul
05-15-2013, 09:37 PM
the thing is that that is where the resistance comes from. There ARE 'activist' gays who will embarrass people and impose on private views in a religious settings, like those who went to a Morman temple in CA and started making out in front of the families at the service, when OUT OF STATE Mormans (in other words, not those in this temple) had funded support for Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8 because I couldn't choose to have government treat citizens differently, but I think forcing religions or using their property to do something they oppose is wrong too. Religious freedom is another important right.

That is why Ron's solution is the best, and I wish evangelical conservatives would wake up to the fact that focusing on the principles will protect the rights they need, at the expense only of allowing others the rights they need as well, without infringement. but those church aimed demonstrations are precisely what terrorizes people who want to raise their own children with their own beliefs in their own religion with its own sacraments.

We all know that in any situation such as this there are gonna be those that take the extreme. Unfortunately Ron's solution does not take into account Federal benefits. Simply kicking it back to the states does not solve the problem. I've made may best case. In any Federal benefit now gauranteed by the term "marriage" the benefits should be awarded to a "benefit designee."If you get rid of the controversy you get rid of those that push extremes. Because their position is less valid.