Obama’s Made Some Bad Deals. Why He Should Stop Sidelining Congress.

Rep. Doug Lamborn /

I have some bad news for Americans and our allies around the world: President Obama is quite good at making bad deals, particularly with dangerous regimes and groups.

The nuclear negotiations with Iran are but the most recent example. A nuclear “framework agreement” has been reached, but the latest deal coming out of Switzerland is dangerous on two fronts. First, it doesn’t protect America’s interests or protect Israel, our strongest strategic ally in the region. Second, the agreement doesn’t meaningfully restrict the extremist Iranian regime from expanding its nuclear program.

An example also can be found in 2014, when President Obama “traded” five hardened terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held captive by the Taliban for five years. What makes this deal particularly disturbing, aside from the president even entertaining the idea of freeing dangerous enemies of America, is Bergdahl already was suspected of desertion. In essence, we swapped five terrorists for one suspected deserter. That’s not a good deal. To add insult to injury, at least one terrorist involved in the “swap” is believed to already have rejoined the Taliban’s fighting forces.

What do these two bad deals say about this administration? There are striking parallels that should be pointed out.

Both bad deals relegated Congress to the sidelines when it should have been instrumental in helping make decisions in these matters. In the case of Bergdahl, the president conducted the “swap” without seeking consultation from Congress, even though U.S. law explicitly requires the president and his administration to notify Congress 30 days before it transfers any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. This failure to notify was no accident; it was the president deliberately flouting the law of the land.

In the case of the Iran nuclear talks, once again Congress was left in the dark and presented with a situation where the president was unilaterally making decisions. The president placed more faith in the despotic leaders of Iran than in the process established by our Constitution and the democratically elected members of Congress. This is a slap in the face of Congress and the people we represent.

In both situations, the president downplayed the questionable aspects of the deals but exaggerated facts to make the deals sound better than they were. He made grandiose claims about Iran’s good deeds in the nuclear talks but ignored the blatant threats the Iranian regime has made toward the United States and Israel. He argued the Taliban terrorists released in the Bergdahl deal weren’t a threat to American lives. This was, to say the least, extremely naïve.

It seems clear the president acted as he did because he knew his actions in both situations would not be tolerated by Congress. As is customary with President Obama, when he knows he has a tough sell to the American people and Congress, he creates ways to maneuver around even the constitutional barriers to push forward his agenda.

It is clear President Obama doesn’t want to work with Congress because we may thwart his plans. Instead of working within the reasonable limits established by the Constitution and trusting that good policy will win in the end, President Obama repeatedly has shown a willingness to play fast and loose with the truth to achieve his policy goals. This is wrong and dangerous.

Ultimately, we want to be able to trust our president, to trust he will make the right decisions for our country, our safety and our strategic allies. We don’t want our country to be shortchanged. Poor decisions such as these place our country and our troops in danger. And the question must be asked: What would stop our enemies from capturing more soldiers (and potentially even civilians) to trade for other terrorists in Guantanamo Bay?

The president is willing to trade known terrorists for a suspected deserter. This leads to a crisis of trust. If we can’t trust President Obama to make the right decision regarding the Bergdahl situation, can we trust him to make the right decision on Iran? Sadly, the answer appears to be a resounding “no.”

Scott Walker Wants to Finance New Bucks Stadium With State Bonds - The Daily Signal

Scott Walker Wants to Finance New Bucks Stadium With State Bonds

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon /

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is considering using public funds to finance a new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team.

According to Fox Business, Walker, a Republican, initially proposed using $220 million in state bonds to finance part of the $500 million arena. The current and previous owners of the team have pledged a combined $250 million as part of the terms of the sale of the team, leaving the city and county to finance the remaining $30 million.

Republicans in the state legislature have said that they don’t want to finance more than $150 million of the project, and the city has said they will provide $18 million.

Fox Business also reports that the new stadium is part of “a larger $1 billion entertainment district” and that without a replacement for BMO Harris Bradley Center by 2017, “the NBA has said it will buy back the team and relocate it.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in January Walker called his “Pay Their Way” proposal a “common-sense, fiscally conservative approach.”

“There’s absolute security for the taxpayers,” Walker said. “No new taxes, no drawing on existing revenues, no exposure to the future … My primary purpose for doing this is to protect an existing revenue stream and not add a new state liability for state government.”

Walker argued that should the Bucks leave Wisconsin, the responsibility of the current stadium’s maintenance falls to the state government, and as a “good steward” of the state’s resources “it is incumbent upon me to find a plan” to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee.

Terms of a deal have yet to be finalized.

The owners of the Bucks along with city and state officials have yet to come to terms on the specifics of a deal, but those involved expressed optimism that the deal is only a matter of time.

According to the Associated Press, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said the meeting was “productive,” and that “any financing plan will remain a part of the state budget.”

Milwaukee Bucks president Peter Feigin told the AP the meeting was “positive and collaborative,” and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett told them that “everyone in the meeting was operating in good faith.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for a comment.

 

Lawmakers Now Have Opportunity to Strengthen Their Oversight of the Iran Deal - The Daily Signal

Lawmakers Now Have Opportunity to Strengthen Their Oversight of the Iran Deal

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips /

The Senate soon will have an opportunity to strengthen congressional oversight over the Obama administration’s naïve and risky nuclear framework agreement with Iran.

The Senate will be considering the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, introduced by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

The bill would allow members of Congress to review any nuclear deal with Iran before congressional sanctions could be lifted by the Obama administration.

But there is concern that the legislation in its current form will not be sufficient to stop a bad deal with Iran.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, helped to broker a compromise with Corker that pulled the teeth of the original bill, which was opposed by the White House.

The new version shortens the amount of time Congress has to review a nuclear agreement with Iran from 60 days to 30 days, strips the bill of a requirement that the president would need to certify that Iran has not directly supported an act of terrorism against Americans recently anywhere in the world and allows the administration to submit the text of an agreement after the June 30 deadline for final negotiations.

The bill creates a process for Congress to block the lifting of congressional sanctions against Iran, which Congress could do anyway without the bill. It gives the illusion that Congress is taking action to make it easier to block a bad agreement with Iran, while in reality it is likely to provide the administration with political cover for a deal.

As William Kristol wrote in “The Weekly Standard,” “So as it stands, the bill is at worst misleading, at best toothless.”

>>> The Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Understanding Key Issues 

The Senate now has an opportunity to amend the bill to put teeth in it that would strengthen congressional oversight of the administration’s negotiations with Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., has proposed an amendment that would block sanctions relief unless Congress votes to approve an agreement and would eliminate the 30 day time limit for congressional review.

Other senators are preparing amendments that would require Iran to stop blocking international inspectors at certain sites, stop operating centrifuges, stop engaging in terror against Americans or stop supporting efforts to destroy Israel.

House conservatives also seek to modify the bill before it is signed into law. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan, told The Daily Signal that “Clearly, this Congress doesn’t trust the president on a lot of issues, but on this one there is absolutely no trust on both sides of the aisle.”

>>> Senate’s Iran Nuclear Bill Misses the Point

What Will Anthony Kennedy Do in Gay Marriage Case? Ryan T. Anderson Weighs In - The Daily Signal

What Will Anthony Kennedy Do in Gay Marriage Case? Ryan T. Anderson Weighs In

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team /

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, discussed the same-sex marriage case the Supreme Court will hear this week and Bruce Jenner’s interview announcing he is identifying as transgender.

How the Sierra Club’s Lexus Liberals’ Agenda Hurts Poor Americans - The Daily Signal

How the Sierra Club’s Lexus Liberals’ Agenda Hurts Poor Americans

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore /

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the whole gang of Democratic leaders claim that one of their highest priorities is to lift up the middle class and reduce the income gap between rich and poor.

That goal collides with what they admit is their very highest priority: stopping climate change. Their agenda is driven by the millionaire and billionaire Democratic donors who make the party possible. But the agenda also involves making energy, home heating, transportation and just about everything else less efficient and more expensive to the middle class and poor. The people who lose their jobs when the climate-change Stalinists prevail are the people at the bottom and the middle of the income ladder.

The billionaire club members don’t seem to mind this collateral damage. Last week billionaire Tom Steyer convened the uber-rich liberal donor base at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seattle—nice—to pontificate about how much they care about polar bears, the Arctic ice caps and rising sea levels.

As Politico reported earlier this week, Steyer had “his fingerprints are all over this week’s spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance—an indication that the influential coalition of liberal donors intends to spend big to elevate climate change, and that Steyer plans to be at the forefront.”

All of the major action items will hurt unions, reduce wages, drive up unemployment, and make the poor poorer. Steyer may as well be saying of America’s working class: Let them eat cake.

The agenda to stop climate change involves making energy, home heating, and transportation less efficient and more expensive to the middle class and poor.

For several years now, the environmental conferences in posh places like Aspen, Sun Valley and Rio become parking lots for private jets. Hillary Clinton requires a private plane when she gives her $200,000 speeches. She and her jolly green friends then opine about why the poor should do their part to help save the planet by giving up coal mining, trucking, welding, construction, pipe-fitting, drilling and other jobs that are vital to their very livelihoods. Farmers in California have to watch the browning of their state and the loss of their property to save salmon and trout. Some 42,000 fewer Americans have jobs thanks to Obama’s decision at the behest of the Environmental Defense Fund to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

What humanitarians these people are. I had much more respect for this crowd when they were bleeding hearts. Though their policy ideas were often misguided, at least they cared about the less fortunate. Now they are willing to nail the poor to a cross of green.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)

Steyer and his pals like President Obama have been running around the country telling Americans that the greatest crisis in America today is global warming. But working-class people universally reject that notion. Nearly every poll of voters over the last several years consistently finds Americans rank jobs, incomes, terrorism, the national debt, schools and other such daily concerns at the top of the list of policy priorities. Global warming almost always ranks last or very near the bottom—which is amazing, given the billions that have been spent on this propaganda campaign.

A Gallup poll found in March 2015 that only 2 percent of Americans perceive the “environment/pollution” as the nation’s “most important problem.” And a Bloomberg poll last year specifically listing climate as a candidate for “most important issue” found only 5 percent of Americans concurring. Polls also show the richer Democrats are, the more they care about climate change. Maybe that’s because green policies hurt the poor and working class—starting most obviously with opposition to modern drilling techniques such as fracking, and with blocking infrastructure projects that would create tens of thousands of high-paying union jobs.

A recent Brookings study entitled “Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas,” finds that the 47 percent decline in natural gas prices due to the shale gas “fracking revolution” has meant the “residential consumer gas bills have dropped $13 billion per year from 2007-2013.” This has saved gas-consuming middle-class families an average of $200 per year, with some families saving nearly $500 a year.

Polls also show the richer Democrats are, the more they care about climate change.

Another study by John Harpole, president of Mercator Energy in Colorado, finds that because the poor spend far more on utility bills than do the rich as a share of their incomes, “the poor benefit far more than the rich from the shale oil and gas boom.” The savings to the poor have been multiple times larger than the value of the $1 billion a year the feds throw at the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Last month Obama pledged to cut America’s carbon dioxide emissions up to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050. Paul Driessen of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calculates this would end up “taking us back to Civil War-era emission levels, 150 years ago.” He adds: “Poor, minority and blue-collar families will have to find thousands of dollars a year for soaring electricity, vehicle and appliance costs. Small businesses will have to find tens of thousands of dollars to keep the heat and lights on. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals and cities will have to pay millions more.”

Remember that when Democrats start playing the class warfare card. No one on the left, least of all the donors who are funding the climate change scare campaign, seem to care about how the poor will cope with slow growth and higher costs. The Sierra Club’s Lexus liberals can afford a future with less growth, fewer jobs and higher costs for everything. The middle class can’t. Democrats have abandoned the financial interests of these Americans. Republicans really are the stupid party if they can’t win these disenchanted voters.

Originally published in The Washington Times 

 

 

Marriage Debate Marches Into Nation’s Capital Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The Daily Signal

Marriage Debate Marches Into Nation’s Capital Ahead of Supreme Court Case

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Alex Anderson / Kelsey Harkness /

As the debate over same-sex marriage heats up across the country, advocates for traditional marriage gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their voices heard. With the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the issue in a landmark gay marriage case in the coming weeks, The Daily Signal asked attendees of the 2015 March for Marriage—and some protesting the event—what’s next.

>>> State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers’ Crowdfunding Page Shut Down - The Daily Signal

After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers’ Crowdfunding Page Shut Down

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Alex Anderson / Kelsey Harkness / Kelsey Harkness /

Less than a day after a donation fund was set up for the Oregon bakers who the state recommended be fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, the crowdfunding website, GoFundMe, has shut it down.

“The campaign entitled ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ involves formal charges. As such, our team has determined that it was in violation of GoFundMe’s Terms and Conditions,” a spokesman for GoFundMe told The Daily Signal in a statement.

The fundraising page was launched Friday after an Oregon administrative law judge announced the fine. Supporters of Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Sandy, Ore., raised more than $109,000 before the page was removed.

>>> State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

In response to being shut down, the Klein’s wrote on their Facebook page, “We have told GoFundMe that the money is simply going to be used to help our family, and there is no legitimate breach of their terms and conditions. We are working to get the account reinstated.”

On GoFundMe’s terms and conditions, which are available to the public, the company prohibits “campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

Anna Harmon, attorney for the Kleins, told The Daily Signal that what happened to the Kleins “is not a crime.”

“It was heard in an administrative court and there has been no opportunity or a jury or even a final order to be issued in the case yet,” she said.

Harmon added that Melissa and her five children, who all stand to benefit from the public’s donations, have been exonerated.

Melissa and her children were not present at the bakery at the time of the refusal.

GoFundMe said the money raised thus far “will still be made available for withdrawal,” which means the Kleins will be able to keep the donations. In the meantime, the family has set up a temporary donation page on Samaritan’s Purse.

“For all of you who gave to the GoFundMe account before it was shut down, we so appreciate your love and generosity,” the Kleins wrote on their Facebook page.

A similar donation page for Barronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist from Washington state who refused to make flower arrangements for a same-sex couple’s wedding, has been operating on GoFundMe for more than two months.

Stutzman, like Aaron Klein, is being held liable for violating the state’s anti-discrimination law.

So far, Stutzman’s page has raised more than $170,000 in donations.

Lindsey Graham on Radical Islam: ‘I’m Going to Stand Up to These Thugs’ - The Daily Signal

Lindsey Graham on Radical Islam: ‘I’m Going to Stand Up to These Thugs’

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Alex Anderson / Kelsey Harkness / Kelsey Harkness / David Brody /

DES MOINES, Iowa—In an interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican says he’ll announce his intentions about a presidential campaign either next month or in June. But whenever he decides, Graham has a clear message for Iowa voters this weekend: “Security through strength.”

Graham has positioned himself to focus on foreign policy if he runs, a subject in his wheelhouse and one that is expected to dominate the 2016 presidential landscape.

In his visit to Iowa this weekend for the Faith & Freedom Coalition Conference, expect Graham to talk tough when it comes to radical Islam. In his interview with The Daily Signal, he didn’t mince words.

“Ronald Reagan said, ‘Peace through strength.’ You’ll never have peace with radical Islam. They will never accommodate our way of life because me and you have one thing in common they hate: We reject their way of worshipping God … they hate you because you won’t bend to their will. They want a master religion for the world like the Nazis wanted a master race and I’m going to stand up to these thugs.”

Regardless of How the Supreme Court Scrutinizes Man–Woman Marriage Laws, They Are Constitutional - The Daily Signal

Regardless of How the Supreme Court Scrutinizes Man–Woman Marriage Laws, They Are Constitutional

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Alex Anderson / Kelsey Harkness / Kelsey Harkness / David Brody / Gene Schaerr /

The amicus brief filed on behalf of Governor C. L. Otter of Idaho in the same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court is remarkable for two reasons.  First, aside from Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and the governors who are named parties (and thus had no choice), he is the only sitting governor with the chutzpah to wade in before the Court on this controversial issue.

Second and more important, his brief establishes that state man–woman marriage laws pass any level of scrutiny the Court may throw at them.

The Court’s Three Levels of Scrutiny

Over the years, the Court has crafted three standards of review for laws subject to a claim of unconstitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment. The most exacting standard—which applies, for example, to laws discriminating based on race or ethnicity—is called strict scrutiny, under which the Court will only uphold laws that help achieve a compelling government interest in the most narrowly tailored way. The government loses more often than it wins under this high constitutional bar.

Next is what is often called intermediate scrutiny, which the Court has applied to classifications based on sex. Here the Court will uphold laws that are substantially related to an important government interest.

The lowest level, which applies to other classifications, is whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Laws almost always pass muster under this standard.

States’ Compelling Interest in Keeping the Man–Woman Definition of Marriage

The man–woman definition of marriage serves states and society in crucial ways.  Indeed, flowing from the institution of man–woman marriage are five social norms that especially benefit children, their mothers, society, and the state.

  1. Biological bonding and maintenance—that children deserve to be raised and supported by their biological parents—leads to a family structure that has been almost universally hailed as the gold standard for children’s flourishing.
  2. Gender diversity in parenting means a child will have a mother and a father, who together provide complementary but distinct benefits to a child’s social, emotional, intellectual and physical development.
  3. Procreation postponement emphasizes that children should not be conceived or brought into the world except within the stability of marriage.
  4. The norm affirming the social value of begetting and rearing children stems from the man–woman definition, which implicitly conveys the state’s encouragement of those procreation-related activities.
  5. Partner exclusivity encourages procreative sexual activity to occur only between spouses.

All of these norms are undergirded by a more general child-centricity norm that calls for parents to place their children’s needs and wants before their own.

The Consequences of Weakening or Destroying These Social Norms

Legally recognizing same-sex marriage sends a message from the state that dilutes or destroys these social norms and thus undermines their benefits to children and society. For instance, in moving to a genderless marriage regime where any two adults can marry, the law necessarily withdraws its endorsement of gender diverse parenting. The biological bonding norm is diminished since at least one if not both parents in a same-sex couple will not be the biological parent of the child.

The result will be fewer children raised in a home by their biological married mother and father. As social science has consistently demonstrated, this means more child poverty, poorer performance in school, more drug and alcohol abuse by youth, increased teen pregnancies and abortions, more behavioral and emotional problems, and more crime.

Not only will this lead to heartache and worse for these children and their families, but states will be left trying to pick up the pieces.  That is expensive.  And no number of programs or amount of spending can fix what is broken in the home.

In short, if a state does not have a compelling interest in preventing these problems and protecting children, there is no such thing as a compelling state interest.

Is Man–Woman Marriage Narrowly Tailored?

But a compelling interest isn’t enough under the Court’s tests of constitutionality. The law must also have a close fit to that interest, or, in the language of the law, be narrowly tailored. Same-sex marriage advocates have criticized man–woman marriage laws as not having this fit—largely because they allow infertile couples to marry.

But that’s just not a problem constitutionally. Allowing an infertile couple to marry still models man–woman marriage for the overwhelming percentage of couples who can procreate—thus strengthening, not undermining, the institution’s social norms.  Moreover, usually only one member of an “infertile couple” is infertile, so man–woman marriage still helps reduce extra-marital procreation. In any event, the “over-inclusiveness” point implicates only one of marriage’s social norms—procreation postponement—and has no effect on the others, all of which would be undermined by a genderless redefinition.

Moreover, once a few state judges began to interpret state constitutions to require same-sex marriage, states faced an all or nothing choice—either keep man–woman marriage with its host of benefits or risk having a genderless version that reduced or destroyed those benefits. For those states, then, expressly preserving the man–woman definition was their only, and best, option.

The Constitution Has No Qualms with the Man–Woman Definition of Marriage

Accordingly, however the Court wants to scrutinize man–woman marriage laws, they pass constitutional muster. The fact that in 2015 we are even having a debate as to whether the Constitution commands same-sex marriage is itself astounding. Fortunately, tradition, common sense, biology, social science, and the Constitution all agree that States can legitimately keep marriage to one man and one woman.

Media, Environmentalists Were Wrong: How the Gulf Coast Roared Back After Oil Spill - The Daily Signal

Media, Environmentalists Were Wrong: How the Gulf Coast Roared Back After Oil Spill

Rep. Doug Lamborn / Kate Scanlon / James Phillips / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Alex Anderson / Kelsey Harkness / Kelsey Harkness / David Brody / Gene Schaerr / Stephen Moore / Joel Griffith /

Five years ago this week a blowout of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig 40 miles from the Gulf Coast tragically claimed 11 lives and spilled 3 million barrels of oil from the damaged wellhead into the Gulf. It’s hard to forget the video images of thick oil day after day gushing into the region’s waters.

It was a horrific accident that caused substantial damage to the ecology and commerce of the region. Gulf area wildlife, portions of the shoreline, tourism, fishers and shrimpers, and energy sector employment suffered large losses in the aftermath of the spill.

BP has paid close to $27 billion in penalties, payments to aggrieved parties, and clean up costs in one of the largest payouts for an accident in American history. This is enough money to hand every man, woman, boy, and girl in Chicago or Houston a $10,000 check. In addition, as the result of a court ruling last fall finding BP acted with willful misconduct and gross negligence leading up to the spill, BP could have to pay another $13.7 billion in Clean Water Act penalties.

But the good news on this fifth anniversary is that the lasting ecological damage from the spill that was originally feared, has not happened. The dire predictions by the media and the major environmental groups proved wildly off base.

Today, the Gulf region affected by the spill is enjoying a renaissance of energy production, booming tourism, and a healthy fishery industry. Scientific data and studies over the past five years show the Gulf environment is returning to its baseline condition. The remnants of the spill are hard to find.

A July 2011 report from the Coast Guard’s environmental assessment found that none of the dispersant constituents found in the thousands of water and sediment tests conducted exceeded the EPA’s chronic aquatic benchmarks. Five years later, wildlife populations have proven largely resilient. For instance, NOAA commercial fishery landings data show that after a drop off in the year of the spill, catch levels bounced back in 2011 to levels not seen in 11 years and they remain strong today.

Why has the damage been contained? First, thankfully, the vast majority of the 3.2 million barrels of crude leaked into the Gulf dispersed naturally, evaporating into literal thin air or biodegrading. Microbes, which already feast on the up to 1.4 million barrels of oil that scientists estimate seep naturally into the Gulf each year, increased in number following the spill—aiding greatly.

Today, the Gulf region affected by the spill is enjoying a renaissance of energy production, booming tourism, and a healthy fishery industry.

The massive $14 billion human clean-up response, with 100,000 personnel, 6,508 vessels, and 13.5 million feet on boom was unprecedented and effective. Dispersants successfully assisted natural dissolution by reducing the size of the oil compounds.

Some of the apocalyptic damage estimated proved to be mere propaganda. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicted at the time that oil would enter the so-called “loop current”, reaching Florida’s Atlantic coast within a week. Synte Peacock, a NCAR scientist, warned “the scope of this environmental disaster is likely to reach far beyond Florida.” Not to be outdone, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers breathlessly reported that “there will be tar balls all the way up the East Coast, all the way to Europe.”

But the oil didn’t make it to Tampa—let alone Europe as the requisite combination of winds and current failed to materialize. By the end of July, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco admitted that “For southern Florida, the Florida Keys, and the Eastern Seaboard, the coast remains clear … ”

And what of the long-term effects on the fishing and shrimping industries?

Advocacy groups such as the Southern Shrimp Alliance’s Jon Williams predicted the spill could last 40 years. CBS News Network’s Melanie Warner suggested that “this could mean a permanent end” to the Gulf’s seafood industry and that “ten years from now … there will very likely still be seafood—shrimp, bluefin tuna and maybe snapper and grouper—that are contaminated with BP’s oil.”

Not to be outdone on the contamination concerns, CNN correspondent David Mattingly worried about the “cascading effect on the entire food chain” from the spill.

Fewer than four months after the spill stopped, NOAA’s director of Sustainable Fisheries Science Center reported, “It appears so far that the impact on the larval population is relatively small.”

Data from NOAA confirm that post-spill Gulf fish populations are robust and that commercial seafood landings have generally been consistent with pre-spill ranges. And more than 10,000 government tests show it’s safe to eat.

The Audubon Society director Gregory Butcher warned the spill “could be the strikeout punch” for Louisiana’s state bird, the brown pelican. The executive director of the Gulf Coast Bird Observatory, Cecilia Riley, cautioned, “The disruption of the food web and lack of adequate food supplies could reduce avian productivity for several years.”

But in fact, Louisiana’s brown pelican population was still strong just a year after the spill, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

The effects of the spill were predicted to have long-term negative effects on tourism as well. The managing director of Oxford Economics USA opined, “History and current trends indicate a potential $22.7 billion economic loss to the travel economies of the Gulf Coast states over the next three years.”

In actuality, tourists have flocked to the Gulf every year since the spill, shattering records the summer immediately following the disaster in numerous locales, including Panama City and the Emerald Coast.

Big Green has tried to capitalize on the BP spill as the reason to block any further offshore drilling. And while there are critical caution signals from the accident, what is needed most is rational offsetting of costs versus tens of billions of benefits and hundreds of thousands of jobs, increased access to energy, community development and so on.

Most in the environmental movement portray the ecology of our planet as fragile and weak. No. The story of horrific accidents like this and natural ecological occurrences like Katrina, is that Mother Nature adapts and she has awesome healing powers.

The Gulf recovery has been swift and impressive and the doomsayers were thankfully wrong. When something like this happens, we should listen to the sage advice of the world’s most famous lawgiver, Moses, who warned us of false prophets: “If the thing does not come about or come true … the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22). Good advice when it comes to the Green Movement prophets of doom.

Originally published in the National Review