Category Archives: Politics

Gun Violence, Gender Irrelevant Marriage, & The General Lee

Gun Violence, Gender Irrelevant Marriage, & The General Lee

I have had a few thoughts rolling around in my head over the last few weeks that no matter what I do, these thoughts are ever present. There have even been several days where I thought about writing something about what has been going on and I have always chosen to refrain. My reason was mostly because I thought that my opinion and the words that I record would somehow be offensive to someone.

The more I thought about it, the more I realize how ridiculous it is. After all, isn’t this same thought process what has helped propel us into the situation that we are in right now.

Then I was sitting in church and the message was partially about getting out of your comfort zone. This made me realize that I cannot worry about what these conjured critics might say or do. In all reality, I realize that this post is likely going to upset some folks and there may be fallout from it.

I may get some comments or emails that tell me how I have everything wrong. Tomorrow may bring an update that says everyone has unsubscribed from my blog. If that happens I will just have to deal with it. I would hope that, just like I realize others have an opinion, others realize I have an opinion as well. We don’t have to agree.


Gun Violence

The shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, SC on June 17 was tragic and there is no way around that. Unfortunately, this tragedy has given those with an agenda the opportunity to go after gun ownership again.

While I wish things like this did not happen, it is not a gun or even the tens of millions of gun owners who obey the law, are properly trained, and keep their firearms away from the crazies and criminals that are actually to blame.

These incidents are isolated cases to which blame can be assigned to gun owners no more than an occurrence of arson can be blamed on gasoline or cigarette lighters. So far, I have not heard anyone lobbying for lighters or fossil fuels to be banned because of what they are capable of doing in the wrong hands.

Better yet, arson is an intentional act, let’s look at something that is unintentional. Every year there are approximately 150 deaths from coconuts around the world. This is a problem that is such a concern that some tropical locations have gone so far as to map the locations of coconut trees on GPS maps in the hope that it will spare residents and visitors injury or even death. Once again, there has been no push for legislation to regulate coconuts or coconut bearing trees in the United States.

To frame the information moving forward, I am operating off of the statistics available for the year 2011. This was the most recent year that I could get factual data for accurate and unbiased comparisons in all categories.

I will say that I do not condone murder, regardless of whether it is by firearm or other means. However, I do believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves with reasonable means, even if that results in death.

The United States Census Bureau estimated that in 2011 there was a total of 311,591,917 people in the United States with 153,290,819 being male and 158,301,098 being female.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention’s report on Death in the United States for 2011, the number of people who lost their life in 2011 as a result of homicide by discharge of a firearm was 11,101 (0.035 murders by firearm per 1,000). That is a rate of just over 30 murders a day, or 1.25 murders per hour by firearm in the United States. That is one gun murder every 48 minutes.

In an effort to compare things as objectively as possible, taking the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Report of 2011 (the latest year available), there were a total of 730,322 abortions in 2011 (2.34 abortions per 1,000). That breaks down to right at 2,000 abortions a day, or just over 83 unborn babies killed every hour. That is one abortion every 43 seconds.

As a side note, if abortion was included as a cause of death in the United States it would be the number one cause of death for all ages and races combined and would be equal to all other causes of infant mortality combined and then multiplied by 30.5. That is staggering!

According to CNN, the sum of the 27 deadliest single day mass shootings in U.S. history from 1949 to the present total up to 342 fatalities, the equivalent of barely four hours of work by the Planned Parenthood physicians of America.  As far as the “mass” murders committed in these isolated incidents (which ironically almost exclusively occur in gun free zones) equate to exactly 5.18 fatalities per YEAR.

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) statistics, from 1982 to the present there have been 2,116 fatalities as a result of commercial airline crashes in the United States for a total average of 64.12 fatalities every year over the last 33 years. The commercial airline industry is considered a high reliability organization and has proven to be the safest way to travel.

To put things into perspective, a 2013 New York Times article relayed that:

In the last five years, the death risk for passengers in the United States has been one in 45 million flights, according to Arnold Barnett, a professor of statistics at M.I.T. In other words, flying has become so reliable that a traveler could fly every day for an average of 123,000 years before being in a fatal crash.

Taking a look at the data; the chances of being in a fatal airline crash is one in 45,000,000. There are an average of 5.18 fatalities a year from mass shootings and an average of 64.12 fatalities a year from commercial airline crashes. That is a 1:12.38 ratio of mass shooting to airline crash fatalities.

To make both causes of death equal, I would have to multiply the mass shooting deaths by 12.38. Therefore, it looks like there is probably close to a one in 557,100,000 chance of dying in the United States from a mass shooting. The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is approximately 1 in 175,223,510.

You are more likely to win the Powerball jackpot three times than you are to to be killed in a mass shooting.

Furthermore, homicides by firearm discharge were only the 49th leading cause of death in the United States in 2011 out of the 113 selected causes that were tracked for that year. Homicides by firearm discharge barely made the first half of the list. In fact, you are actually more likely to die from a large variety of other causes.

Here is a glimpse of what you may need to fear more…in 2011:

  • There were 26,631 people that were killed by falls in the U.S. but ladders are still legal in all 50 states regardless of their capacity.
  • 119,732 people died from a heart attack but you can still get eggs & bacon for breakfast. You can even have them for lunch, a snack, or dinner in many restaurants.
  • Pneumonia killed 52, 136 in 2011 and yet cold weather has not been made illegal when water is also present.
  • 16,634 people lost their lives to alcoholic liver disease and another 26,256 died from alcohol-induced deaths but you can still get a six pack of your favorite domestic beer in just about every corner store in America. To credit the feds, they tried making alcohol illegal once and we all know how it worked out.
  • There are millions of automobiles in the United States and yet 34,677 died from motor vehicle accidents without Moms Demand Action screaming that minivans and sedans should be outlawed.
  • Deaths as a result of illegal drug use were over 40,000. Those are illegal and it is still almost four times more likely to cause a death than a firearm is.
  • Not to make light of it, but there were over 38,000 people who committed suicide. You are 3.5 times more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by a gun on purpose.

All that and the same people who generally think that guns are the problem, find it ok for an unborn baby to be killed. It is extremely disturbing to me that for every one murder by firearm, there are 66 unborn babies that are killed.

It seems as if guns aren’t as big of a problem as doctors and the United States Supreme Court that made the decision in Roe v. Wade that all states had to be ok with abortion regardless of how the states and/or their citizens felt about the issue.

Gender Irrelevant Marriage

Another recent development is the decision that was made by the Supreme Court that dictates that all states must issue a marriage license to any same-sex couple and every state must acknowledge the marriage of a same-sex couple that is performed in other jurisdictions.

There are a few issues that I have with this, mostly the fact that now many are being forced to participate in things that we are firmly against. Especially from a religious perspective. I honestly don’t know where to go from here. I understand that there is a small minority of people in the United States that feel they have the right to be married to anyone that they want to be but what about the majority?

According to a study by the Williams Institute, the number of people in the United States that identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender is roughly 9 million, or 3.5% of the population. In comparison, a recent ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll reveals that the number of people in the United States that identify as Protestants or Catholics is approximately 75% of the population, or about 239,250,000 people.

Why does this matter?

Protestants and Catholics believe in the Bible, which clearly outlines the fact that homosexuality is a sin and is not ok. In Paul’s letter to the Romans he wrote:

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.

Romans 1:24-29 (New Living Translation)

Despite popular rumor, there are other references made of homosexuality in the Bible. This in only one of them.

The good news is that in the book of John, chapter 3, verse 16; God’s promise is revealed:

For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 (New Living Translation)

Now I realize that there are some of my fellow Christians who say they believe that it is ok to be homosexual and there is no problem with same-sex relationships as long as “love wins”. There is plenty wrong with it though. We all know when something is not right with this, we read about it in the Bible and know that that wages of sin are death.

Religion aside, same sex relationships cannot even be argued to be natural from a biological standpoint. Most people have a basic, ethical understanding that certain behaviors are wrong because they go against nature. The facts are clear that for reproduction to happen, you need a man and a women. Without adoption or petri dishes, same sex relationships would result in the end of humankind.

Here is another look at same-sex relationships from a biological standpoint:

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane wrote in his opinion about the case that would invalidate Oregon’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (Geiger vs. Kitzhaber) that:

I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these [same-sex] plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families.  Families who we would expect our constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure.

In the same article, the author highlights that:

This is an extraordinary remark. What Judge McShane calls “gender and sexuality” is the only means by which families are generated. Since families come from parents, you cannot look past parents and still have a family — because there would be no family there. Homosexual acts cannot generate families; therefore, their “families” cannot be the same. If there are children present, we may be sure that both parents of the children are not present in that family. That is a lot to look past.

Some pro-homosexuality activists argue that because an estimated 10% of the population identifies as LGBT, it is normal.

In a National Employment Law Project study published in March of 2011 arguing for reform of criminal background checks in the Post-9/11 world, it was estimated that there are 65,000,000 people with criminal convictions in the United States. That is one out of every five people or roughly 20% of the population (double that of those who claim to be LGBT).

So if being LGBT is normal, than being a criminal should be twice as accepted, right? If that is the case, we should shut down the entire criminal justice system. But none of that makes sense now, does it?

Furthermore, because of the fact that we can’t go anywhere without seeing or hearing something about homosexuality or transgender people, I am forced to address the questions of my nine year old son who is far to young to be forced to deal with the extreme perversion in our society.

What business does the government have in the marriage business anyway?

Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul answered this question nicely in an editorial for Time magazine.

There were several key points that I took from Paul’s article.

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

Makes sense to me.

Can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?


Senator Paul closed with these comments:

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.

Seems to make a lot of sense. Perhaps it is time that we start to think about what we ask the government to get involved in.

There is another theory on allowing the marriage of same sex couples…taxes. Actually, it would appear that the Obama Administration stands to add $400,000,000 to the government’s coffers as a result of this decision.

Come to think of it, $400 million is enough to light up the White House like a rainbow in celebration.

So what now?

One of problematic outcomes when #LoveWins is that the redefinition of marriage makes way for other things to be redefined and leaves others wanting an exception to be made. Take the example of Montana polygamist Nathan Collier who placed an application for marriage to wed a second wife, a move inspired by last weeks SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage. His application was initially denied but as things tend to go when someone in America does not get their way, Collier threatened to sue.

When definitions are subject to interpretation, individuals all want their views and perspectives honored on the national stage and only those who are in the majority are left to suffer.

Same-sex marriage is not all that most people would have you believe either. There are several references that can be found that outline the significant tendency that these couples tend to have towards relationship practices that are considered unacceptable to most people. Practices like open relationships and even blatant encouragement towards infidelity. What is even more troubling to me is the fact that many in the LGBT community feel like this is the key to a successful relationship.

Is this what we have to look forward to from the generation we know as millennials?

What does it matter though? Does anyone ever get hurt when two people love each other? The answer is yes, people are hurt by gay marriage.

But don’t worry…much of the push for this decision is a move by the LGBT community to just abolish the institution altogether. Don’t believe me? Read what one gay man has to say about his plans to not marry in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision:

If the two people in the partnership decide how it should run, isn’t that enough? And why is the government even bothering with organizing us into pairs? Let’s just abolish the federally recognized institution altogether and let churches bless unions and have every individual file her own taxes.

You can read the whole article here.

To close out, I will end with my favorite quote on the Supreme Court’s decision that was made by Matt Walsh:

This is an embarrassment. Our nation’s highest court has just upended the institution of marriage, dismantled the rule of law, undermined the will of the people, and canceled out the legislative process entirely, and did so based on the reasoning that gay people want to find a life together. Maybe they do, but what in the hell does that have to do with the Constitution? And how was anyone being denied a “life together” simply because marriage has a definition?

The General Lee

I promise that I will be done soon, but lastly there is the issue of the outrage over the Confederate flag (it actually was a battle flag and was never used to represent the Confederacy as a southern nation.).

I understand what most people believe about the civil war; it was about slavery and the Confederate battle flag represented the desire to own slaves or oppress the lives of those who did not deserve. This is not true. The flag that most people call the Confederate flag today is actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee as well as other armies that belonged to the greater body that is known as the Confederacy.

First of all, no one can simply wipe out history with some legislation that removes a flag from the capitol grounds in South Carolina. History happened and I would actually hope that there were many that would like the reminder of the past to remain so that it can remind future generations of our past mistakes. Slavery is, was, and always will be wrong. Ignoring the fact that things happened though will not help anything.

Let’s be clear though, the southern states were not the only states where there were slaves and slave owners, many in the north owned slaves (including the leadership of the Union army). If you look hard enough, you find evidence that there were slaves in the north and even both the Union and Confederate armies had slaves that fought in their ranks.

But never mind the fact that the Civil War came about as a fight for States’ Rights and money above all else, let’s just try to rewrite history so that we can make it what we want it to be and not what it actually was.

Of course in our infinite ignorance as a nation, and the desire to make people believe only what is taught in our public schools, we have taken things too far. We know that the typical American is not going to go looking for the truth. We will believe what anyone tells us. After all, if you want to hide something from an American, just hide it in a book.

The ignorance has gone so far that the bakery a Wal-Mart in Slidell, LA refused to make a cake for a man because he wanted it to have the image of the confederate battle flag on it. He decided to put the system to the test and went back the next day. This time, Wal-Mart was more than happy to make him a cake with the image of the Islamic State flag on it.

Do yourself a favor and read a little on how to deal with civil war ignorance.

Just to make sure that things go even further, public outcry has seen to it that the iconic General Lee (the car driven by the Dukes of Hazzard) has been stripped of the Confederate battle flag that has adorned it’s roof since the Duke boys have existed.

I think that it’s all ridiculous! In a world where all guns are bad, sin and things that can be scientifically proven are ok, and history has to be removed from the record; I just want to run and hide.


Myths about Confederate History

Stuff Worth Sharing

This week I stumbled upon some great information that I felt was worth sharing. Some of it is prepping related while some of it is political in nature. Whether you lean one way or the other in the political arena, it is important to know what is going on in the world.

Food Storage Basics Plus A Super Food Storage Giveaway

Jennifer from Are We Crazy, Or What? has put together a great post on the basics of food storage including the differences of long term and short term storage as well as things to consider when storing food. The full article can be read here.

Anti-Surveillance Mask Can Hide You From Biometric Face Scanners

Mac over at posted a story about a new rubber mask that would allow the wearer to hide their true identity from facial recognition software. Check it out here.

No Knock Raid Results in Multiple Cops Shot – One Killed

Freedom Outpost outlines the scary epidemic of no knock raids executed by the increasingly militarized police forces around the country and how it has led to increased fatalities of both law enforcement officers and citizens. Read about it here.

USDA Puts Out a Request for .40 Cal Sub-Machine Guns

For those that haven’t heard yet, the United States Department of Agriculture is the latest federal government organization that is looking to add military grade weapon systems to their inventory of equipment. Their request is not for any run of the mill sub-machine guns either, the solicitation specifically outlines the need for,

Submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burst trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsible or folding, magazine – 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.

Read the full account here.


How I’d restore Ronald Reagan’s vision for America

LTC Allen West outlines how he believes that we may be seeing what he calls the first light of the “dawn of a new America.” Personally, I hope he is right. Read his take on things here.

I hope that everyone had a great week but don’t stop preparing for the tough times that may lay ahead.

The World’s Most Fearsome WMD

John Kerry: Global warming is “world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

Yes, Mr. Kerry (“our” Secretary of State) just said that last week. That means you, dear reader, exhaling CO2, are a “terrorist.” You had better keep an eye on that Agenda 21 drone hovering outside your window! And now, presumably even the most mindless “Yes we can” chanter now knows there has been ZERO global warming since 1998 (well, I can dream, can’t I?).

Maybe Kerry should go back to traveling on his wife’s private jet, called the “Flying Squirrel” (just google “Kerry Flying Squirrel” to get your own details), sailing his 76’, $7 million dollar yacht, the Isabel, which he docked in R.I. a few years back to save $500,000 in taxes rather than by docking in his home state of Taxachussets. At least he is less of a hypocrite than fellow leftist zillionaire John Travolta who owns FIVE airplanes, and has his own private airport…. but then, what else to do you expect from Hollywierd Learjet leftist?)

Image Credit:

Or perhaps Kerry could go back to one of his mansions. A few years ago (this may have changed now, as well as valuations) his digs included:

  • Boston: A five-story, 12-room Beacon Hill townhouse that serves as Kerry’s main residence. Assessed value: $6.9 million.
  • Nantucket, Mass.: A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront retreat on Brant Point. Assessed value: $9.18 million.
  • Washington, D.C.: A 23-room townhouse in Georgetown. Proposed 2005 assessment: $4.7 million.
  • Ketchum, Idaho: A ski getaway converted from a reassembled barn near Sun Valley. Assessed value: $4.916 million. Heinz Kerry owns two adjoining lots valued at $1.5 million and $1.8 million.
  • Fox Chapel, Pa.: A nine-room colonial on nearly 90 acres in suburban Pittsburgh. The property also includes a nine-room, carriage house. Assessed value: $3.7 million.

Make sure to check out the leftist website Snopes for additional details about the properties, where they try to justify it by saying that Kerry, himself, doesn’t really own all of them, as his prenup with his fellow zillionaire leftist wife means that he doesn’t legally own them (never mind the fact that these two leftist darlings have all this for, well… just two people!).

To consume as much electrical power as do the Kerry-Heinz mansions, the two largest of the five – in Pennsylvania and Idaho – are in cold climates and presumably need to be kept above 55F (and probably much more) for at least six months out of the year. With a combined estimated 110,000 square feet under roof, this takes as much energy as is required by a small American village of approximately 200 persons – for basically TWO people. Where is the radical leftist outrage at this wanton expenditure of the earth’s non-renewable resources for two people? Before he bought the Isabel, he tooled around Nantucket Sound in a 42 ft luxury powerboat he called the Scaramouche, of which the no-frills model starts at $695,000, which he reportedly bought factory fresh, for cash. But then, he NEEDS this massive amount of fuel to get our leftist darling from event to event in a manner in which he doesn’t have to mix with us poor, unwashed masses.

And in case you were wondering about Kerry’s recent trips he made to discuss global warming, Jim Geraghty of National Review Online helpfully pointed out that flying first class from Washington to Seoul to Beijing to Jakarta to Abu Dhabi and then back to Washington runs up roughly 12.16 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to, which uses data from the EPA and Department of Energy. In comparison, the average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide in a year. So in one week, just from flying from meeting to meeting, Kerry generated about two-thirds the carbon output of the average American in one year.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I am now convinced that “WE” must be the problem. Never mind that the polar ice is doing just fine. I would like to extend a special thank you to Jim for sending this information my way.

What Lies Beneath The Global Warming Propaganda

Thanks to loyal contributor J for providing some insight into the ongoing climate scam.

In the end, all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences. ~Søren Kierkegaard

As Blaise Pascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use their skills to pursue power, not truth. The issue of global warming is, as I will demonstrate below, a direct case study of this exact issue. But what, exactly, is behind the frantic, daily global warming warnings, trumpeted daily by everyone from the president to the easily influenced mainstream media reporter?

Actually, what lurks underneath the global warming mantra is the very same thing – the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) – that was behind the global cooling scare of the 1970s, as illustrated by this Malthusian inspired statement from a 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point: “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”  Their solution was simple – engineer a massive reduction in population and utterly change the socio-economic system through centralized planning via total government control. This “man is the enemy” was reiterated by the Club of Rome in 1993, as well, when they stated in their  The First Global Revolution that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

“We came up with the idea” the document says? In other words, a conclusion had already been reached, and now they needed to create a “reason” to support their unsupported – and as Julian Simon demonstrated with his famed wager with uber-greenie Paul Ehrlich (detailed below) – false a priori assumption of increasing scarcity. Do not try this technique in any school paper you may attempt, or you will – or at least should be – failed!

As Robert Zubrin observed, to the warmers, “… each new life is unwelcome, each unregulated thought or act is menace, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation.” Exaggeration?  The World Wildlife Fund Living Plant Report of 2012, which Lewis Page summarizes in the May 16, 2012 edition of the Register states that “economic growth should be abandoned, (and) citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty.” The rich, of course, are especially bad, as the Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, by Rosalyn McKeown, found here, tells us: “Generally, more highly educated people who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” Presumably, as in every other single socialist experiment, the cronies and connected – along with the Learjet leftists of Hollywood and no doubt Ms. McKeown – will be exempted (Orwell captured this succinctly when he noted, in the socialist workers’ paradise, we’ll all be equal, only some of us will be “more equal” than the others). Incidentally, the Malthusians might want to get a clue, as between 30 and 50 percent of all food produced globally, equivalent to two billion tons, is thrown away each year according to a recent report written by the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), titled ‘Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not’.

Of course, individual rights will also verboten, given the Malthusian threat to the earth. As Harvey Ruvin, Vice-chair of International Committee for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that wants to impose the green agenda/Agenda 21 on everyone has noted, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Pol Pot, move over. But not only are the Malthusians wrong about food and climate, they even have the population part of the equation correct. Even the reliably politically correct Time Magazine noted “…it turns out the world’s population isn’t growing nearly as fast as it once did. In fact, experts say the rate of population growth will continue to slow and that the total population will eventually — likely within our lifetimes — fall.”  Evidence for this? It was just reported that Japan’s population dropped a quarter million in 2013, and by 2060, over 40% of Japan’s population will be 60 or older. Europe, China and other regions are not far behind.

Perhaps some of the more radical global warmers would not be appalled by the iconic picture taken by Kevin Carter in 1993 in South Sudan where a vulture sits watching a malnourished child but really, if you are a Malthusian, you logically might rejoice over this child dying, as there are supposedly already too many on the lifeboat and we must start “culling.”

But none of the above beats Finnish writer Pentti Linkola, an uber-greenie, who wants to reduce Earth’s population to 500 mm and abandon modern technology (presumably he is getting his message out via smoke signals). Writes Linkola: What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.” And of course, America is the core of the problem: “The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.”  Linkola concludes by writing: “Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economic growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her… Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.” (Cited from Linkola has also publicly called for climate change deniers to be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite (yes, this will mean Obama can continue his golf outing to Hawaii on Air Force One!). Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.

All this misses, of course, the simple dictum of Univ. of Maryland’s late Julian Simon: “The most important benefit of population size and growth is the increase it brings to the stock of useful knowledge. Minds matter economically as much as, or more than, hands or mouths.” This is the same Julian Simon that bet global coolers Paul Ehrlich and current-warmer-then-global cooler John Holdren that the price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten would go down, not up, by Sept. 29, 1990.  In fact, all five commodities – which Ehrlich selected – went down by the targeted date. In Oct. 1990, Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a cheque for $576.07 to settle the wager.  No word if current unelected Obama science czar Holdren – who formerly was a very strong Cassandra about global cooling in the 1970s – chipped in any dough or not. But – as the last refuge of scientific (or economic) scoundrels – of course, “this time will be different.”  See this link for the Wikipedia summary of this wager.

But, the failure of the Malthusian wager – or even a thousand failures, much like the communist “it’s never really been tried the correct way” argument – deters no one who refuses to examine his presuppositions, and the Malthusian drumbeat continues. To wit:  In April, 2012, mimicking the Club of Rome earlier, the Royal Society published People and the Planet (online here) – calling for the West to be de-industrialized, as well as for a drastic reduction in population based on their demonstrably preposterous “modeling” analyses. The indefatigable Ehrlich states here: “They (population and resources) multiply together. You have to deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies the terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away from the rich to the poor…you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.” And $100 to first person who guesses who will be in charge of that redistribution process, as well as who will be exempted because they are “special” (and you can start with Nancy Pelosi and her exemption of herself, her district, and her union cronies from Obamacare, or ask Michelle Obama on her next uber-luxe vacation). Long story short, the Guardian reports that the Royal Society basically would like to sequester everyone in megacities to reduce material and energy consumption, as well as “systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.” In sum, Agenda 21. See the Planet Under Pressure article for the full, gory details. Or as the chief scientist behind Planet Under Pressure, Michail Fragkias states, “the answer (to population growth) is denser cities.” Of course, the question presents itself to some of us as to whether these cities are meant to be Nazi-like ghettoes, to allow better control of the sheeple.  And of course this is all needed, for as AD Barnosky, et al, in Nature, June 17, 2012, warns, by 2050, we will have at minimum 9.5 billion people, with distinct possibility of there being 27 billion people. The UN also cited a figure of 9.5 billion by 2050 in Science (July 29, 2011), with the omnipresent Ehrlich letting us know in Nature that “in biophysical terms, humanity has never been moving faster or further from sustainability than it is now.”

But these people are not alone. Nutrition professor Anthony Costello of the Institute of Global Health (yes, nutrition) stated in a January 25, 2011 lecture titled Stabilising the global population: Where next for the Millennium Development Goals that “climate denialism” in the US is “a major problem”, both culturally and politically, “that’s got to be addressed” and the phrase “climate skeptics” needs to be removed from the vocabulary when describing those not willing to go along with the disproved and debunked “climate change” hoax. Rather, Costello argues, the phrase should be replaced by “climate denialists.” Here is Costello in his own words on YouTube. And Costello then sets the stage as skeptics being the next terrorists by stating in 2010 during a 2010 Policy Symposium on the Connection between Population Dynamics, Reproductive Health and Rights and Climate Change (page 5), that “climate skepticism kills.” I’m sure Mr. Costello “forgot” that various flavours of socialism killed between 100 to 160 million last century, but no worries there!

But as they say in the Ronco commercials, Wait! There’s More! At a UNESCO conference in September of 2009 on how to best “communicate” the IPCC conclusions, 20-year BBC veteran environment reporter Alex Kirby compared climate-skeptics to Apartheid proponents (Session 1, 01:36:35): “I’ve never thought it is part of the journalists’ job to try to inject an artificial and spurious balance into an unbalanced reality. If I have been sent to do a story on Apartheid or poverty or starvation, I hope to God I would not have tried to do a balanced story. And I think the same applies to climate change.”  Of course, this comment was omitted from the official transcript. Yep. Scientists simply trying to apply the scientific method to the question of the validity of global warming are “killing people” and worse than apartheid supporters, while the socialists and warmers, who have the blood of tens of millions on their hands are lauded as humanitarians. It has even gotten so insane that sociologist Kari Norgaard has written that “cultural resistance” to the concept of man-made climate change has to be “recognized and treated” as abnormal behavior (See here or here). And yes, you are  correct – homosexuality is good according to the APA, and using the scientific method to arrive at truth about climate is now “abberant, with” scientists asking real questions needing to be “treated.” Meanwhile, University of Amsterdam philosopher Marc Davidson who in 2007 wrote that those who are skeptic about global warming equal those who defended slavery and Andrew J. Hofman of the University of Michigan, wrote in Climate change as a cultural and behavioral issue: Addressing barriers and implementing solutions that “(…) the magnitude of the cultural and moral shift around climate change is as large as that which accompanied the abolition of slavery.” In his paper Hofman also stressed that “humankind has grown to such numbers and our technologies have grown to such a capacity that we can, and do, alter the Earth’s ecological systems on a planetary scale. It is a fundamental shift in the physical order – one never before seen, and one that alters the ethics and morals by which we judge our behavior as it relates to the environment around us and to the rest of humanity that depends on that environment.” 

It gets worse. Dr. Eric R. Pianka, at a University of Texas lecture to fellow scientists, students and professors in 2006, invoking peak oil stated that 90% of the world’s population needed to be killed using a weaponized form of the Ebola virus. He stated that an airborne version of Ebola would be more effective than the HIV/AIDS virus has been because of the speed in which the victim dies.  Pianka also spoke positively of the death the bird flu could bring, and spoke of the need to “Sterilize everyone on earth” at this lecture. (This is the same Mengele-like Pianka who has also stated “We’re no better than bacteria!” at one of his lectures.) Meanwhile, Simon Ross, head of Population Matters, has stated “population shrinkage is the cheapest and surest contribution to sustainability that we know of” (D Normile, The Upside of Downsizing, Science, July 29, 2012), with fellow misanthrope Rob Hengeveld, in his book How Our Consumption Challenges the Planet, proposes reducing world population to 1 billion.

As the Daily Sheeple noted, “Altering our ethics, altering our morals – that’s exactly what Agenda 21 is all about- specifically and altering these ethics and morals to more “environmentally friendly” ones.” And don’t expect this to be done openly or democratically, as the need is “too urgent” (though not urgent enough for the elite to have to change their lifestyles).

It may even be as bad – though examining conspiracy theories are not the goal of this paper – as noted in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars that there is a conscious effort of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the book, where it states: “… the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.”

And this brings us back to where we started – the philosophy which lies underneath the global warming iceberg, or what is the ocean of presuppositions supporting it. Unfortunately for the warmers, facts are a stubborn thing, and those darned global warming deniers keep presenting facts so simple even a grade-schooler can understand (broken hockey stick, anyone?), and even the general population is increasingly rejecting the global warming scam.  It may be, as Alduous Huxley noted, that “Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” Then again, the Nazis and Soviets had pretty good scientists, too. As Arthur Koestler noted, there is, in fact, a ghost in the machine, and man can never be reduced to mere cogs in a scientist’s machine, no matter how complex.

In the next article, we will examine the actual facts, figures and science behind the global warming legerdemain.

WE Own America!

The last couple of days have been a source of disappointment to me. We have a government that has become so corrupt that they would rather see chaos erupt across the nation than compromise. In fact, both parties wanted the government to close. The Republicans want to be able to say, “See, we let the government shut down fighting for the people” and the Democrats want to be able to say, ” The Republicans are such anarchists that they want Americans to die instead of have affordable health care.” Our “representatives” want to be able to play the blame game instead of represent us.

Photo Credit:

For clarification, I don’t think the world is ending because the government is shut down. In fact I think it just demonstrates the fact that the government has become so large that most of it is not necessary. I also do not believe that the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, is a good idea. It is nothing more than an entitlement program. What makes it affordable? Giving those who cannot afford regular insurance subsidies from the tax payers. Nothing more than an expansion of welfare! Enough about that.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the incident with the World War II honor flight veterans yesterday with the veterans that wanted to see their memorial. Upon their arrival they found the World War II memorial was closed because of the government shutdown. Now I know that the story has a “happy ending.” A few representatives of Congress found out about the situation and came to the memorial where they removed the barricades and escorted the veterans into the memorial. Today, there was an increase in the security presence at the memorial to encourage other veterans to stay out. This isn’t about the budget or the shutdown. This is about controlling people. The World War I memorial is not barricaded because there are no living veterans that may try to break into it.

It is ridiculous!!! Why are we empowering the government to control us! This is the people’s property. We bought and paid for it with our tax dollars. President Obama and Speaker Boehner did not pay for the monument. It is ours! Those veterans do not need permission to be there. The government only has the power that we give them. It is time that we let OUR government know that they work for us. WE own America!