How to Rebut the Coming Wave of Tasteless Green TV Ads Defending Congress’s Bipartisan Effort to Check EPA (BONUS BLOGS: “Niskanen Center’s Unreasonable Case for Carbon Tax” & “Progressives Insincere Response to Pope”)

(Before It's News)

Both chambers of Congress appear likely to pass appropriations bills amended with policy riders that would check EPA on a number of fronts.

Mainstream media reports stress that these policy riders are GOP initiatives, but the fact is that all of them assuredly will enjoy robust bipartisan support. In fact, members of both parties are wary of the President’s multiple power grabs. And once these riders are attached to a spending bill, they’ll enjoy even more bipartisan appeal. After all, spending is the sine qua non of parochial politics, on which all lawmakers—regardless of political party—rely for reelection. The bipartisan support for these bills, in turn, will pressure Obama. It will be harder for the President to justify a veto (and, by extension, a shutdown of some or perhaps all federal agencies) on the grounds of GOP intransigence if his own party is in on the act.

Thus, these bills are viable politics. Which means that green groups are sharpening their knives.

As I’ve explained here, here, and here, green special interest have become very active in the business of slimy attack ads. Whenever one of their ideological ends is threatened, these groups spend millions of dollars on tasteless and mendacious media campaigns that portray their opponents as murderers hellbent on polluting babies to death. Alas, I’m not making this up.

So here’s a prediction you can take to the bank: Green groups will soon announce a new “hard hitting” television, radio, and online media campaign whose purpose is to influence the Congress’s vote on the appropriations bill. The ads will feature wheezing babies or toddlers in oxygen masks. They will blatantly infer that any Member of Congress who sides with “polluters” (by voting for the spending bill) will have the blood of children on his or her hands.

All of this brings me to my purpose today, which is twofold:

First, I want to sound the alarm that these duplicitous green ads are coming, and thereby afford any interested parties (i.e., American business or giant pools of “dark money,” wherever they may collect) the opportunity to produce a rebuttal.

Second, I’ve generously shown the way, by producing the advertisement below, which I hope will provide an example as to how these things can be done. In it, I play the role of Franco Harris, legendary HOFer Pittsburgh Steeler running back Franco Harris. He was the only famous bearded athlete I could think of. This would function well as a regional spot in the Keystone State; for a national spot, I’d use Phil Mickelson. And so…without further ado…

• Last Wednesday, Niskanen Center head-honcho Jerry Taylor tried to frame a carbon tax as a conservative risk management strategy. As I explain in last Friday’s Cooler Heads Digest (available here), Taylor’s argument made no sense.

• Today, the Pope unveiled an encyclical urging action on climate change. My take: Any pro-choice, pro-gay rights progressive sounds insincere when they trumpet the Pope’s “game changing” letter. If one can pick and choose among the Pope’s preferences, then his encyclical is akin to just another packet of papers on top of the thousands (millions) documents that support one side or another on any issue.

• Cooler Heads Digest 12 June 2015
• Libs ignore that Pope Francis tied abortion and gender issues to his environmental message
• Pope Calls For Global Governance Of The Climate And Oceans
• The Pontiff Buys a Bridge
• The encyclical: spirituality and ethics join the climate debate
• Environmentalist Shipwreck
• Toxic algae bloom may be largest ever off U.S. West Coast – ‘We’ve never had to close essentially half our coast’
• The Pope’s encyclical on climate change: Live reaction and analysis
• Full text of pope’s statement on environment and exploitation
• The Return of Catholic Anti-Modernism