Eric Swalwell in 2023: Don’t Take His Word He Did Nothing Wrong With...
The Rig Picture: Nancy Pelosi Warns That Trump Is Planning to Hack Our...
Hacked? UK Home Office Promises Grooming Gangs Inquiry, No More Policing of Social...
Celebs Sign Open Letter Demanding ICE Detention Facility Holding Children Be Shut Down
David French Says Trump Is the Worst Free-Speech President of His Lifetime
The TDS Crowd and Lib Media Do NOT Like Trump and Hegseth's Response...
LGBTQ Crowd Lobbies Worcester City Council to Become a 'Sanctuary City for the...
New Law Forces Boise Mayor to Take Down Pride Flag From City Hall
Rubio Tuesday
Voters Don't Love Republicans — But They're Terrified of Democrats
NBC News: ICE Will Be Stationed Outside Graduation Events for New Marines
Judge Blocks Construction of White House Ballroom Unless Congress Authorizes It
Disappointed Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Conversion Therapy Is Discredited Junk Science
Mehdi Hasan: 'Nothing Justifies October 7 but October 7 Justifies Everything'
The Cult Strikes Back: Chicago Bulls Waive Jaden Ivey for Calling Out Forced...

Fake news from the future: EPA soon to stop (its usual bang-up job of) protecting the environment

Oh, come on.

Anyone who follows media types on Twitter knows that conservatives and liberals alike are strongly suggesting reporters keep their powder dry and save the real outrage for when it’s deserved — after all, it’s been settled among our intellectual betters that a Trump presidency will lead to certain armageddon, either through nuclear war or climate change … maybe both, in the form of nuclear winter.

Advertisement

Overplaying their hand at every opportunity is one of the reasons voters turned their backs on the media when they went to vote, and it doesn’t look like the media has learned its lesson.

Take, for example, a piece in Wednesday’s Washington Post on Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, filed under the headline, “Trump to name Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA.”

Fair enough … although Jim Roberts, who has enjoyed high-powered gigs at the New York Times, Mashable, and Reuters, preferred this alternate headline:

There’s already been a full day’s worth of drama over the “existential threat to the planet” Pruitt’s appointment would be, but if the EPA truly is going to stop protecting the environment, is that such a bad thing, considering the bang-up job the agency has done recently? Look how quickly the EPA responded to this huge toxic spill … that was the fault of the EPA.

Advertisement

Oops. Give it time and $28 million and nature will clean it up. And the person responsible for the spill? The one accused of violating the Clean Water Act and giving false statements? No biggie.

Oh, and remember what a great job EPA head Gina McCarthy did with the Flint water crisis? Outstanding.

So, the EPA is finally going to stop “protecting” the environment? Good. We can think of a few federal agencies that could stop “helping” for the next four year.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement