Want amazing, share-able, conservative quotes? Check out QuotableRight on Twitter, Facebook, or the web.

If Greenpeace Cared About the Nazca Lines, They’d Turn Themselves In

Hat tip to Hot Air for linking this PBS Newshour segment featuring drone video of the damage Greeenpeace activists did to the Nazca Lines world heritage site.

As I watched this, two things struck out. The first was Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo’s epic non-apology.

I apologize personally to the people of Peru and all those around the world who were offended by our actions. This is not who we are.

Kumi doesn’t care that activists from his organization did irreparable damage to the Nazca lines site. He’s just sorry you were offended by their destruction. Kumi claims “we must now commit our full attention to making amends,” but as the PBS Newshour video notes, “Greenpeace had yet to provide a full list of the international group of participants who are thought to have fled the country.”

If Kumi is serious when he claims “this is not who we are,” then why wouldn’t he help bring those who damaged the Nazca lines site to justice? Instead, Greenpeace’s denies responsibility for the damage in their “Nazca timeline,” claiming “It is impossible to tell from the photographs whether the marks indicated are new or not.” Yes, I’m sure it’s just a huge coincidence that there are footprints, trails, and other markings at the exact site where Greenpeace laid out it’s message. But at least they’ve agreed to stop using photos of this PR disaster, what a sacrifice.

Greenpeace US Executive Director Annie Leonard claims she is “committed to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable” for their actions. If she is serious, Greenpeace can providing the Peruvian government with a full list of everyone involved in the stunt.

Anything short of that is just PR spin.

The Electorate Gap: Democrat Senators Bash CEO Pay While Own Salaries Soar

15 Democrat Senators penned a letter to SEC Commissioner Mary Jo White demanding her “assurance that the SEC is still planning to finalize the rule” requiring publicly traded companies to track and publish “the ratio of what they pay their CEO to the compensation of their median worker.”

The Democrats claim this information is vital so that if a CEO requests a pay raise, investors will be able to evaluate “whether this is value creation or simply value capture by insiders.” In a previous letter to the SEC during the public comment period for the proposed rule, Democrats complained that CEO pay is too often driven “upward without clear links to additional value created.”

Value capture by insiders without clear links to additional value created: that sounds like the definition of congressional pay which has ballooned from $72,600 in 1984 to $174,000 today.

In fact, despite the newly-elected Obama’s promise to end “business as usual” and the Democrats’ stranglehold on Congress in his first term, Congress graciously accepted raises from itself in 2008 and 2009 despite a tanked economy and, in 2009, a falling median household income.

I’d like to know what value these Democrats complaining about CEO pay think they added to the US economy to justify a pay hike funded by Americans whose own incomes were shrinking. Will Elizabeth Warren rail against this value capture by insiders whose salaries the rest of us paid for with the same zeal she exhibits when bashing the private sector, or do the rules she wants forced on us not apply to government?