A'ya, we're environmental hypocrites!

"In many parts of our country [Canada], smog days are the new normal."

Here's yet another example of the liberal environmentalists pointing fingers at others when in fact they should be looking in the mirror. Following is an excerpt from CNSNews.com which pretty much speaks for itself.

I wonder why however, that it's not common knowledge that the US has made such tremendous strides in cleaning up our environment? Could it be that it fits the environmentalists' agenda - who are in fact more anti-capitalists than pro-environmentalists?

Why are we still looked upon as the polluters of this “pristine” world while the real polluters get a free pass? Well, of course it's easier to blame others for your problems than fix them yourself.

Hypocrites!

Canada Accused of Poor Record on Environment
By Howard Williams
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 14, 2005

Pollution Watch, an international environmental group, said the U.S. reduced air pollution emissions by 45 percent between 1995 and 2003, while Canada's reductions over the same period were only 1.8 percent.

"In many parts of our country, smog days are the new normal," said Rick Smith, the group's Canadian executive director, referring to a particularly smog-ridden summer this year in cities including Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

When that report was released, Environment Minister Stephane Dion admitted the government needed to do more. [Gee, ya think?] Bob Mills, environment spokesman for the Conservative Party, the largest opposition party, hailed the "realistic" approach of the U.S.-Australia-led group.

Mills called on Canada and other pro-Kyoto countries to "broaden the approach and literally admit that Kyoto is a dead dog, stop petting it, and get on with the reality of where the world is at."

Chalk another one up for our publik skool system!

Your tax dollars at work! Here’s a short article courtesy of FOX News
“Refresher Course Required?”

Many Americans could apparently use a refresher course when it comes to how their government works. In a new poll, commissioned by the American Bar Association, most half could not identify the three branches of government, which are of course, the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Some 22 percent said the three branches were Republican, Democrat and Independent. Another 16 percent identified the branches as local, state and federal. And while small numbers of people said the judicial branch is responsible for either declaring war or raising taxes, just under half correctly said the courts determine how existing law applies to a case.

I’m sorry, but this is just pathetic. Maybe we should spend a little more time teaching civics and getting the basics of education down, i.e. reading, writing and math, before we set out on the grand adventure of exposing 6 year olds to homosexuality, Heather Has Two Mommies and for the correct way for teenagers to use condoms.

See this article “Parental Rights vs. Public Schools” by Wendy McElroy. Here’s an excerpt: “The conflict began on Jan. 17, when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a Diversity Bookbag from kindergarten. Included was Robert Skutch's "Who's In a Family?" that depicts families headed by same-sex couples. Parker had wanted to decide for himself the timing and manner in which his son was introduced to the subject of homosexuality.

(The Bookbag is supposed to be a voluntary program but the Parkers knew nothing about it in advance.)”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165253,00.html

Parental Impotence

Why are some so absolutely convinced that parents can affect their children's behavior when it comes to drug use or smoking while at the same time are so absolutely convinced that parents are incapable, incompetent and impotent when it comes to convincing their children to abstain from sex?

The contradiction, of course, is glaringly obvious. You see it all the time; public service commercials crowd the airwaves: “Parents, the anti-drug”, “talk to your kids about not smoking” or driving drunk. These messages are admirable and I agree with them completely. Society’s youth can be swayed and should be warned about the dangers around them, of vice, of temptation. They should be warned that their actions have consequences, possibly severe, even life-threatening. Over and over they tell us that we can influence our children; all we need to do is talk to them, be firm and take action when necessary. So why do these same people say that no matter what we do, we can’t stop them from having sex?

Clearly there are dangers inherent in drug and alcohol use, of the long-term effects of smoking. But sex has dangers too, so why the inconsistency? Why is the truth being hidden? Why are today’s youth being lied to? Sex does have consequences; many are harmful; some are deadly.

There’s a flashback commercial airing currently that depicts a mother’s dismay over not saying something “anti-drug” when she had the chance and now her son is “so stoned” and “didn’t get the job he deserved”. And another which prepares parents for the inevitable confrontation when they actually try to exert some parental pressure.

Why don't I see spots telling kids that sex can lead to broken hearts, pregnancy, abortions (and the accompanying guilt and increased risk of breast cancer), sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS? Incurable, deadly diseases. Are these not legitimate dangers? As every parent knows, NOT objecting to a behavior is tantamount to approving of it.

(I do have to laugh that the producers of these commercials actually believe their messages are an inspiration for parents to finally take action; if they’ve been so pusillanimous the first 15 years of their kids’ lives, I doubt that they are likely to receive a sudden serge of intestinal fortitude from a 30 second spot – but, you never know).

Regardless of their presumed efficacy, the message is out there: “Parents! Use your parental influence to mold your impressionable children and protect them from earthly dangers, such as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes!”

(Of course, we’re going to give them condoms without telling you because they’re going to have sex whether you like it or not and there’s nothing you can do about it, so you might as well let us encourage them by showing them how to use condoms we give them, (with taxpayer dollars), not tell them about the negative consequences of having sex such as pregnancy, abortions (and their negative psychological and physical effects), sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are incurable and can kill them, and the fact that condoms don’t work, OK? Thanks.

Oh, and by the way, we’re also going to tell them that the real secret to happiness is “stuff”, so we’re going to tell them that they’re not cool and won’t be happy if they don’t have the latest clothes, iPod or bling-bling, and they won’t be truly fulfilled unless they are rich, famous, thin, pretty and just like Britney!)

So, you tell them not to smoke – and we’ll tell them everything else!

Hurricane Katrina: it’s all Bush’s fault!

Only since Bush stole the election in 2000 did the world first experience these heretofore unknown, enormous, vortical tempests (dubbed "hurricanes"), which only now have begun to ravage the innocent people of the earth (and the “little Eichmanns” – right Ward? – of the United States).

It’s all because Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol – which guarantees the cessation of “human caused global warming” – that we all must endure periodic destruction by these never-before-seen whirling, windstorms, or “hurricanes”. Yes, only since Bush was selected, not elected, did humans begin to emit those evil “greenhouse gasses” which has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to have caused “global warming” and the resulting “hurricanes”.

If only Kerry – (he was a Vietnam war veteran, in case you didn’t know) – had been able to prevent the Bush gang from disenfranchising all those millions and millions of voters, he would have beaten Bush and we’d all be eating mangos under palm trees and clear blue skies, (disrupted only briefly by soft, summer, life-sustaining, rain showers), listening to John Lennon himself sing “Imagine”… ahhhhhhhhhhhhh…

(Lennon would have been brought back to life because of the federal funding of stem cell research that Kerry would have facilitated).

If only Bush signed the Kyoto Protocol, then none of this would have happened! He should have signed it just like our European friends did; yes, they signed it alright – they don’t abide by its constraints – but they signed it by golly! And now they, and their environmentalist freaks, can point the finger of blame squarely at that illegitimate “president” Bush – because if only he signed the Kyoto Protocol (just like the Europeans did), then we’d all be safe! Yay for the hypocritical Europeans and the wacko environmentalists – BOO for Bush the evil capitalist, (who hates puppies)!

PS: Where are all those generous, philanthropic countries – who called the US, (the most generous nation to have ever existed), “stingy” – when we are in need? Oh, sorry – they’re hypocrites too!

How Chinagate Led to 9/11

The following is an excerpt from “How Chinagate Led to 9/11” by Jean Pearce, FrontPageMag.com, May 2004:

“As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick… helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return…”

Obviously, Clinton had no regard for the negative effects that his policy changes would have on our (and his) country. He didn’t care that by creating policies that made it easier to cover up the Chinese military’s contributions to his presidential campaign, he allowed terrorists to plot right under our noses; and the authorities, with their hands tied, could do little. Though there were some who broke ranks and tried to warn of the terror in our midst. Most notably, New York City-based U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White appalled by the Gorelick directive, sent two memoranda to Janet Reno and Gorelick remonstrating, “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” Regrettably, her warnings were utterly ignored by Reno and Gorelick. They had Bill Clinton to protect and to hell with the country.

Perhaps if Clinton didn’t take money from the Chinese military, (which is illegal – accepting campaign contributions form a foreign government is prohibited by law), then the World Trade Center would still be standing and the thousands who died would still be alive; but he did and they died.

And where was Jamie Gorelick? She had a seat on the 9/11 Commission investigating the attack! She should have been a witness and thrown in jail to boot for her culpability in the worst single terrorist attack on US soil; though with the news of “Able Danger” surfacing, I think the 9/11 investigation has a long way to go. Unfortunately, I think Clinton’s legacy has a long way to go too – thanks to the missile technology transfer made to the Chinese by the Clinton administration, the Chinese now have missiles that can deliver their nuclear warheads around the world! Thanks very much Mr. Clinton and Ms. Gorelick. Hillary in ’08? God help us all!

Want more? Don't take my word for it; click this link to a terrific – and infuriating – article entitled "9/11 Coverup Commission" by Ben Johnson and Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu and feel your blood boil!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19129

Intelligent Design

It must be tremendously frustrating for you in the scientific community to have to repeatedly fend off the proponents of Creationism. (I refuse to refer to it as Intelligent Design since we all know it is merely “code” for Creationism and indeed the “designer” must most certainly be God – how transparent!)

Creationism should not be taught in our schools since it amounts to nothing more than religious dogma. It is merely a highly speculative hypothesis and is not technically even a theory since it cannot and never will be tested or falsified, proven or unproven; by definition a valid theory must be falsifiable. Otherwise, it is just an hypothesis.

By contrast, evolution suffers from none of the ills which plague Creationism.

Or does it?

Unless some scientist somewhere has (intelligently) recreated biogenesis (the origin of life) in a lab (and simply forgot to mention it) I would say that “evolution” is not a proven fact at all; further it is not even a testable, falsifiable theory. Given that, I would have to conclude that “evolution” is not even a valid theory but simply a “highly speculative hypothesis”! To quote Mr. Mirsky of Scientific American (December 2005), I would even say that it is "moronic" to blindly adhere to such a belief system as “evolution” – with absolutely no proof as to its validity. With the lack of evidence to prove this hypothesis, (or experiments for that matter), one might say that it requires a great deal of faith to believe in the hypothesis of "evolution”.

As I stated earlier and as we all know, by definition a valid theory must be falsifiable. Yet, there are no experiments that can prove or disprove Darwinian evolution; no experiment or evidence to prove biogenesis; no experiment to prove or evidence of genetic mutations spawning new species (or even producing improvements in existing ones); the fossil record does not exhibit a gradual evolution of species or support punctuated equilibrium, nor can it be tested; there are no examples of macro-evolution at all, anywhere.

I suggest that Mr. Mirsky's attack on Creationism is merely a diversionary tactic to distract everyone from the real truth: that “evolution” is a joke! I think that those who believe in the hypothesis of "evolution" feel that it’s safer to hide behind “mother earth” than to postulate that there really is a God and that you may someday be accountable for your actions; so they run around with blinders on, mocking anyone or anything that challenges your belief system. After all, it is one thing for the Christian Right to burry their collective heads in the sand, but Scientists?

Never let it be said that the scientific community believes in anything but pure, unadulterated, facts! (Unless it fits their agenda).