Black Helicopters in the Big Sky

The Conspiracy Congressman

This week, TEA Party Congressman Dennis Rehberg R-MT, demanded that the U.S. Government halt a plot to spy on farmers with drone planes–the same kind of drones used to kill terrorists overseas.

The Washington Post immediately reported that no such plot exists, but the incident has helped shed light on one of Rehberg’s favorite tactics of deception.  This isn’t the first time that Rehberg has tried to act upon or helped spread conspiracy theories. He’s deployed an array of conspiratorial claims to deceive his base voters in hopes they won’t remember that Rehberg is responsible for having the most pork spending earmarks in the entire U.S. House of Representatives. (Either that or he really believes this stuff. Either way, it shows he’s not fit for duty in the U.S. Senate.)

The Canadian Hippy Conspiracy:

Rehberg has introduced legislation, H.R. 1505, based on the conspiracy theory that we need to give the Department of  Homeland Security control of all Montana’s public lands within 100 miles of the Canadian border to stop drug trafficking, illegal immigration and hippies from coming in from Canada.

The Spilled Milk Conspiracy:

As Mother Jones reported, then the Wall Street Journal published an editorial decrying a new EPA rule that the paper falsely claimed would require milk spills to be treated like oil slicks, conspiracy theorists began ranting about how the agency was “crying over spilled milk.”  No matter that EPA explicitly exempted milk tankers from the spill cleanup rules.

Rehberg immediately began spreading the conspiracy, playing up the milk-spill myth in a speech back home: “If anyone wants a ‘first responder’ for spilled milk, just adopt a cat!”

The Conspiracy to Regulate Cow Farts and Bad Breath:

When the EPA began modernizing greenhouse gas regulations, Mother Jones reported, tea partiers like Rehberg:

began dreaming up things the EPA will soon be cracking down on in the name of climate change—cow fartshedge trimmersnursing homes, and, yes, even human respiration.

“Every living person is now a source of pollution by exhaling CO2 and water vapor,” Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said in a January 2010 speech on the House floor. “Every breath you take, every word you utter is now subject to EPA regulations,” Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said in aspeech on the House floor. “The American people need room to breathe.”

In reality land, the EPA has issued a rule specifically limiting the emission regulations to the largest sources in the country—meaning a person would have to emit quite a bit of hot air to qualify. Not that we’re writing off that possibility in Rehberg’s case.

Rehberg’s actions are often so ridiculous that the only people he can find to come to his defense are other crackpots.   Last year, Rehberg’s credibility took a serious hit when the Billings Gazette pointed out that Rehberg obstructionism could downgrade America’s credit rating, throw Wall Street into turmoil, and another recession in a world economy that runs on the strength of the U.S. dollar.

The only people Rehberg could find to cite in his defense were the Moonies and their church-owned newspaper.  The Washington Times was founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Moonies and has been kept on a close leash by the Moonie staff.

 

Share

30 Comments on "Black Helicopters in the Big Sky"

  1. I get his emails from his campaign every other day or so….. Some of the damnest crap a person can say about the government are written in those little internet notes. But the one thing that is not in the notes….. is his record cuz he has none!

    Oh yea they talk about how he wrote a letter to this guy, or that guy but nothing concrete about a bill except for this shit mounger 1505, Rehberg’s federal land grab bill: “Handing all that control over to one agency who has no experience dealing with hunting and angling on public lands has unknown consequences for tens of thousands of sportsmen and women in Montana.” John Gibson of the Public Land and Water Access Association.

    We are gonna get stuck with the destruction of Montana because of this guy. A man who actually wants to destroy public lands like Glacier park by putting gas and oil pipelines through it. and encourage drilling on the Roosevelt Ranch.

    That first hundred miles is the source of Montana’s headwaters. the trickle down effect will be from the Mine tailings and oil spells polluting all of Montana’s clean water sources. Think anyone else in the USA is gonna buy you cattle when they find out your cows been drinking arsenic tainted water Ranchers? Yea I didn’t think so!

  2. In spite of all the vitriolic claptrap presented here as substance, here’s the real problem: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/column-dissecting-a-montana-primary-of-surprises-crossover-voters/article_f1eafcb6-b298-11e1-95f7-0019bb2963f4.html

    It was the elephant in the room at the state Democratic Party convention this weekend.

    Why did so many more Montanans once again choose to vote the Republican ballot in the primary election instead of the Democratic one?

    Some delegates to the Democratic convention were scratching their heads over the disparity, although party officials preferred to look ahead to the general election.

    Unofficial results Tuesday showed 61 percent of voters cast a vote in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate race, while 39 percent voted in the Democratic primary. The disparity amounted to nearly 50,000 votes.

    Republicans pointed to the enthusiasm of GOP voters in Tuesday’s primary as a good sign.

    In the 2010 primary, 67 percent of Republicans voted in the top statewide race for the U.S. House, versus 33 percent for Democrats. There was a 67,000-vote difference then.

    Republicans, of course, went on to a huge victory in the November 2010 general election, grabbing a 68-32 majority in the state House and adding a seat to their Senate majority.

    Going negative on R’s at every turn and opportunity will not inspire people to vote to close the voter turnout gap suffered by D’s.

    How about being positive in a way that inspires and motivates your base to get off their asses and participate? A contest of ideas and visions for the futures. How refreshing that would be.

    • I heard several Madison county dems who took Republican ballots to get rid of Birther Bob. In Silverbow, turnout was good.

    • I posted a history of Montana’s primary turnout for 1920–2012 at http://www.flatheadmemo.com/archives_2012/april_june/2012-06-05_montana_primary_turnout.html. The turnout was more similar to 2004 than to 2008. There are long term trends that are troubling for both parties.

    • Craig, 59% of the voters stayed home. Your argument doesn’t pass even the smell test. Even I voted for all the sane Republicans when Dem were not in a particular race. It is just as likely that a lot of those voters who didn’t show at the polls, might be getting ready to jump the GOP ship for all you know.

      The voting might parallel 2004, but the issues do not… not even close.

      • Norma, what happened in 2010 when R voters outnumbered D voters by 60000? Wasn’t there a D running against Rehberg back then? You got the point. D votes stay home. That’s the problem when their is no motivation and inspiring reason to participate. Howl at the moon all you want with negativity. Nuff said.

        • Forgot to add that Obama’s disapproval rating is not inspiring either: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

        • 59% of the voters in this state didn’t vote in the primary this year. Your not answering that question Craig, your making up an answer. 2010 wasn’t a presidential election year. and the the percentage was lousy at 56% at general.

          It is amazing that the closer we get to the election the more your answers turn to mush! In 2008 a presidental election year, 75% of the population voted and Obama lost by about 9000 votes only. With the republican Obstruction this year. I think your gonna see some very mad independents who wont go back to the GOP

        • Craig, your comment to Norma was just silly. Yes, there was a Dem running against the incumbant Rheberg – a Dem that didn’t really even have the support of his own party, let alone the independants. Further, 2010 was not a presidencial election year. This election will not resemble 2010 at all.

          Further, this year, it is Denny Rehberg running against the incumbant Senator Tester. Denny can’t run a stealth campaign and if he tries, he will get murdered in November in the polls. Denny passing on the debates with Tester was a REALLY bad move on his part.

          • Kenneth, what’s silly is the denialism that D’s can get elected when D voters don’t turn out and R’s do. I’m not sure what the antidote is for that malady other than what I suggested above. 50000 more R’s than D’s voted in the primary when the front runner R candidates didn’t not have serious competition.

            As to this being a presidential year, whatever enthusiasm and support Obama had has evaporated as evidenced by the polling data. No coattails there this time. Tell us, what is going to close the enthusiasm gap and get D’s to the polls? I just don’t see it.

            • As to my previous comment, I tried to implant the following image to express my reaction to your comment Kenneth: http://i.imgur.com/6NiSa.gif

              Didn’t work. Here it is again.

            • First, I don’t see the primary as an indicator of the General. Second, if you look at the primary data, Romney didn’t do so well with Republican voters in Montana. Third, yes, turnout will be important but I wouldn’t start patting yourself on the back just yet. You may not see it, but the enthusiasm is there. We will see what happens at the polls come November.

              I would point out one little falacy with your logic, though. You assume that everyone who voted in the primary, voted their ideological bent. That is a completely silly prediction. I am a conservative and I voted in the Democratic primary because I wanted to see two specific people win that primary (I won one and lost one… oh well). The only really contested race in the Republican primary was the Governor’s race and that was not certainly was a given before the primary.

              • Kenneth, I am NOT patting myself on the back, merely pointing out the looming challenge which is not addressed by the negativity constantly expressed here.

                As to Tester wiping the floor with Rehberg, I saw where Tester just voted for the farm bill. It seems it has provisions that will have Montana environmentalists up in arms: http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/34312-take-action-new-farm-bill-amendments-attack-your-health-and-environment.html

                Montana greens may not vote for Tester further exacerbating the participation gap.

                • Craig, I’m not certain if you’ve been paying attention. But the very people you are concern-trolling about have already abandoned Tester.

                  • Rob, not all before the farm bill vote. But Tester has certainly given the rest a hard shove. You’re a smart guy, just how does Tester close the voter gap?

                    • Craig, I’m not certain he needs to because I think the “gap” is manufactured. We’ll see in November, won’t we?

                    • We agree, we will see in November. As to the gap of 60000 in 2010 and 50000 in 2012 primaries being manufactured, you’ve got to be kidding. The numbers speak for themselves.

                    • These people you say that have “abandoned” Tester will still end up voting for him anyway given the choice of Rehberg as the alternative. Sure, some of them won’t… they will “make a statement” but the majority certainly will. Moreover the winner will be the one that A) motivates the middle and B) gets the most votes. As Rob said, we will see in November.

                    • Kenneth, recently Ken Toole wrote an OP-ED about Bullock that further underlines my point about D voter turnout: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/bullocks_property_tax_rebate/28403/

                      We could almost hear the shot of the starter’s pistol as the race for Montana governor began in earnest earlier this month. First out of the gate was Democrat Steve Bullock with an election year promise of a $400 payment for certain property owners. Republican Rick Hill responded that Montanans need permanent tax reductions, not one-time gimmicks. And they are off! And many of us are yawning.

                      Bullock’s proposal is bad politics, poor tax policy and cynical, recycled rhetoric. ..

                      This proposal is bad politics. Democrats should be looking at the primary election results and shaking in their boots. In the June primary election, many more voters went to the polls to vote on a Republican ballot. Historically, that correlates to performance in a general election. Democrats in denial tend to argue that independents voted in the Republican primary and in a general election they will go the other way. But plenty of Democrats understand that a big part of their problem is that Democratic base voters are staying home. Bullock’s proposal is bad politics because it discourages base Democratic voters. It leaves them wondering why they ought to get out and support candidates who promote traditional Republican positions on taxation and other important issues.

                      Ken Toole is president of the Policy Institute. He also served on the Montana Public Service Commission and in the Montana Senate on the Tax Committee. He has held numerous state and local positions within the Democratic Party.

                    • Craig, I fail to see your point. You simply posted an Op-ed, written by another conservative, that said almost exactly the same thing you said before. So what? My points still apply.

                      In addition… I disagree with Toole’s characterization that tax rebates are bad politics. We had a financial surplus and Bullock wants to refund that money to the tax payers. It was a one time thing and unlikely to be the case next year.

                      What IS bad policy is lowering taxes when revenues are down already. This puts increased pressure on Government to cut programs – programs that, at least in Montana, many people depend on. They certainly aren’t going to cut money or benefits to the rich – those guys finance campaigns. No.. they will cut things like planned parenthood, PBS, Experienced works (yes, I know that is a federal program, but the analogy still applies) etc.

                      You aren’t selling me Craig. Until you can factually back up why I should be worried about voter turnout, I am not going to buy into any conservative running his mouth without the least bit of actual knowledge on what will happen in November.

                      Frankly, I think voter turnout will be – at least in part – a function of what the economy does between now and then. Scared and angry people tend to turn out in more numbers than happy comfortable people. The question (and whether you want to admit or not, it really is a question… ) is whether these scared and angry people are going to vote for Republicans (that proved last year they were more interested in passing laws like hunting with silencers than they were in jobs) or Democrats.

                      This years election is a toss up. I still think Bullock will win (and handily) but I think voter turnout will be ONE of the keys to who wins. There are other keys that will play as well.

                    • One last point… As a conservative, I have yet to see a conservative candidate that I can support. Show me one that isn’t a nethetic wacko and we might have a discussion…

                      Soupy Sales? Not a chance.
                      Derek Skees? You got to be kidding me
                      Steve Daines? Please… the man has already signed Grover’s pledge telling everyone he is more interested in special interests than representing people in Montana
                      Debbie Barrett? Come on.. she is as nutty as Knox

                      Show me ONE.. just one conservative candidate I can vote for that isn’t a nutcase.

  3. What would it be like to have a sane congressperson? One with real ideas?

    like this? http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/20/502199/defazio-transactions-tax/

  4. Cowgirl, you missed the best party of Denny’s milk spill B.S. The entire statement he actually made, as reported by the Montana Standard, is below. It further demonstrates his intent to deceive:

    And last week, the EPA claimed that it now has jurisdiction over spilled milk. I am not making this up.
    You see, Congress gave the agency responsibility over oil spills – which makes sense. But someone told them that milk contains animal fat – which is form of non-petroleum oil. And … well you get the picture. The impact on Montana’s dairy farmers could be severe not to mention surreal. They may soon have to develop “emergency management plans” for spilled milk – as well as train “first responders.” I say: If anyone wants a “first responder” for spilled milk, just adopt a cat!

    Read more: http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_358cc568-32fb-11e0-a11b-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1ySs2kcg5

  5. Drunks for Denny | June 22, 2012 12:00 PM at 12:00 PM |

    Its a known fact the Canadian hippies sneaking over the border at Glacier National Park carry pounds of marijuana in their backpacks.

    Its a known fact that smoking marijuana reduces ones intake of alcoholic beverages, thus decreasing sales in our bars.

    Mark my words, the Montana Tavern Association will endorse Denny this fall.

  6. Its not what Denny told Us….. when we went to DC to see him. it was the illegal gun trade on the back of the illegal sex trade that crossed into America over the Tallest mountains in Glacier Park.

    The man is as Dopey as his nickname. After that conversation, My opinion of him is that, he distains National Parks, and Open spaces unless their is Oil and gas rigs atop every square inch. He is a tool every part of his conversation was predicated on Corprate speech, which is the very reason he got his ass handed to him in the first debate.

Comments are closed.