Friday, March 26, 2010
Another Favored Quote
In light of the Health Care Legislative Coup, I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Favored Quotes by Liberty Minded Patriots
Judge Gideon Tucker put it, "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's immortal passage has never been topped:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's immortal passage has never been topped:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel West speaking at the American Freedom tour
An inspiring message by someone who gets it!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Townhall.com
For those who thirst for knowledge. Townhall.com this is a great site for thought provoking insight and opinion backed by facts. Enjoy
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/
My personal favorite columnists...
Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/
Walter Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/
John Stossel
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/
My personal favorite columnists...
Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/
Walter Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/
John Stossel
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A Vision Of Death
A vision accompanied with deductive reasoning, scientific evidence and factual data can be a beacon for grand societal advancement. However, a vision backed with assumptions, agendas, fraud and politics can be deadly. DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was first synthesized in 1874 with no intended use but years later, in 1939, it was discovered that it contained properties that were effective against warding off several arthropods (insects). It was used extensively in the second half or World War II with great results in controlling mosquitoes from spreading malaria, lice and typhus. After the war, DDT was made available as an agricultural insecticide with tremendous results, virtually eradicating malaria in the free world. In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences stated: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 Million human deaths due to malaria that would have otherwise have been inevitable.”
Enter the alarmist do gooder. In 1962, Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson sounded the alarm. It raised concerns about the harm that pesticides may be causing. Most notably, she went after the pesticide DDT. The book suggested that the indiscriminate spraying of DDT may cause cancer and its agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, in particular the thinning of bird eggs. To back her theory, she erroneously represented a study to conform to her pre-conceived conclusion. In other words, the actual facts didn’t matter. It was her twisted vision of the “truth” that guided her conscience to get the word out. The book led to a public outcry by the nitwitted sponge heads. With the 1960’s peace, love and environmental movement, it gave the politicians the opening to come to the rescue.
Enter the alarmist government agency. In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into hearings on the safety and environmental impact of DDT. After all the evidence was presented, the Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeny concluded: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have deleterious effect on fresh water fish, wild birds, or other wildlife…and… there is a present need for essential use of DDT.” Nonetheless, that conclusion was overruled by the EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. With that, DDT was officially banned in the U.S and the rest of the world followed suit. The result, a preventable disease, malaria which poses no danger to humans or bird eggs re-emerged with deadly consequences. The carnage in the third world, primarily Africa, has been devastating. It’s estimated that over 30 to 40 million malaria deaths have occurred since the ban. So, let’s recap. A known pesticide that indisputably prevented human death was banned without having any alternative (as good or better) substitute. This is the equivalent of banning brakes in automobiles because they may fail and kill the driver while ignoring the fact that brakes virtually never fail and prevent death.
In September of 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S Agency for International Development declared “Indoor residual spraying with DDT and other insecticides will again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight the disease." Why, because “DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings” and “Given the severity of the malaria epidemic now in Africa and parts of Asia, it is reasonable to be using limited amounts of DDT for indoor use” Even so, DDT is still banned in the U.S and Europe.
In conclusion, Rachel Carson is credited with having launched the global environmental movement. She’s considered a hero to the modern day tree huggers and is strongly admired by the current environmental deity, Al Gore. Rachel died in 1964 and was never able to see the carnage she helped unleash. At least she didn’t die from Malaria because the spraying of a safe, effective pesticide, DDT, assured that. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In regards to William Ruckelshaus, it’s far more sinister. He was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Along with their environmental agenda several members were ardent population-control advocates. These nuts believed the planet would soon be overpopulated and something needed to be done to curtail this disaster. Therefore, it’s conceivable that Ruckelshaus ideology factored in his decision to ban DDT and he and his brethren viewed this as an effective policy to “control” the population. Heinrich Himmler would be proud!
Enter the alarmist do gooder. In 1962, Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson sounded the alarm. It raised concerns about the harm that pesticides may be causing. Most notably, she went after the pesticide DDT. The book suggested that the indiscriminate spraying of DDT may cause cancer and its agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, in particular the thinning of bird eggs. To back her theory, she erroneously represented a study to conform to her pre-conceived conclusion. In other words, the actual facts didn’t matter. It was her twisted vision of the “truth” that guided her conscience to get the word out. The book led to a public outcry by the nitwitted sponge heads. With the 1960’s peace, love and environmental movement, it gave the politicians the opening to come to the rescue.
Enter the alarmist government agency. In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into hearings on the safety and environmental impact of DDT. After all the evidence was presented, the Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeny concluded: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have deleterious effect on fresh water fish, wild birds, or other wildlife…and… there is a present need for essential use of DDT.” Nonetheless, that conclusion was overruled by the EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. With that, DDT was officially banned in the U.S and the rest of the world followed suit. The result, a preventable disease, malaria which poses no danger to humans or bird eggs re-emerged with deadly consequences. The carnage in the third world, primarily Africa, has been devastating. It’s estimated that over 30 to 40 million malaria deaths have occurred since the ban. So, let’s recap. A known pesticide that indisputably prevented human death was banned without having any alternative (as good or better) substitute. This is the equivalent of banning brakes in automobiles because they may fail and kill the driver while ignoring the fact that brakes virtually never fail and prevent death.
In September of 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S Agency for International Development declared “Indoor residual spraying with DDT and other insecticides will again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight the disease." Why, because “DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings” and “Given the severity of the malaria epidemic now in Africa and parts of Asia, it is reasonable to be using limited amounts of DDT for indoor use” Even so, DDT is still banned in the U.S and Europe.
In conclusion, Rachel Carson is credited with having launched the global environmental movement. She’s considered a hero to the modern day tree huggers and is strongly admired by the current environmental deity, Al Gore. Rachel died in 1964 and was never able to see the carnage she helped unleash. At least she didn’t die from Malaria because the spraying of a safe, effective pesticide, DDT, assured that. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In regards to William Ruckelshaus, it’s far more sinister. He was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Along with their environmental agenda several members were ardent population-control advocates. These nuts believed the planet would soon be overpopulated and something needed to be done to curtail this disaster. Therefore, it’s conceivable that Ruckelshaus ideology factored in his decision to ban DDT and he and his brethren viewed this as an effective policy to “control” the population. Heinrich Himmler would be proud!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The latest mantra of the environmentalist brigade is that “the debate is over; it’s a known fact that global warming exists” Bullshit! The debate has just begun. The problem with these militants is they try and demonize any opposing viewpoint that doesn’t fit their stance. They only want those ‘studies’ supporting their beliefs to make headlines and a willing press, over the years, has been happy to comply. For example, it made headlines when 1,600 scientists signed a letter of the “devastating consequences” of global warming. But virtually unreported was that 17,000 scientists signed a petition, which cautioned against the alarmism, saying there’s no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases disrupt the earth’s climate. www.oism.org/pproject/
60 minutes did a segment earlier this year on how global warming, due to human activity, is causing the arctic to melt. But absent was any opposing viewpoint. There was one reference to how the skeptics “have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years” but, personally, I found it condescending. The main cause, they contend, is the rise in carbon dioxide CO2 concentration levels. However, they never provided the most basic of comparisons: The correlation between temperature change and CO2 concentration, and here’s why. Since 1880, during the period when the lowest CO2 concentration increase occurred, the arctic had its highest warming trend. When the concentration began to significantly increase, the arctic temperature cooled then leveled off and has remained virtually unchanged since. Hmm! My point, anyone can find a study to support their viewpoint.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
I have a couple theories on what drives these people. One, it’s a lot easier for a scientist and the global warming alarmists to get funding with scaremongering and doomsday scenarios. If the sales pitch were “to date, we don’t really have any compelling evidence but we would like to keep looking into it” The government grants and philanthropic donations dry up. The second is a modern day syndrome I call “Since I have free time on my hands, I need to be part of a significant world changing movement” (a bit wordy but it fits). Freedom, capitalism and the innovation that stems from it have allowed life’s basic necessities; food, water and shelter to be virtual after thoughts. These advancements have given people the time and means to pursue there passion and for the most part, this is a great thing. However, there are always unintended consequences. Like many, the environmentalists want their life’s to have purpose and the cause they have chosen is to save the planet. What could be more important! However, they are so convinced it’s real that any information contrary to their viewpoint is irrelevant. How dare anyone question the important work they’re doing.
Hey, nobody wants to destroy the environment and it’s good that we debate the effects, if any, human advancement has on the planet. Some basic regulations, over the years, have insured that we act more responsibly. The hardcore environmentalist movement has veered off the path with their uncompromising ability for civil debate. It’s this narrow mindedness and arrogance that actually hurts there cause.
60 minutes did a segment earlier this year on how global warming, due to human activity, is causing the arctic to melt. But absent was any opposing viewpoint. There was one reference to how the skeptics “have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years” but, personally, I found it condescending. The main cause, they contend, is the rise in carbon dioxide CO2 concentration levels. However, they never provided the most basic of comparisons: The correlation between temperature change and CO2 concentration, and here’s why. Since 1880, during the period when the lowest CO2 concentration increase occurred, the arctic had its highest warming trend. When the concentration began to significantly increase, the arctic temperature cooled then leveled off and has remained virtually unchanged since. Hmm! My point, anyone can find a study to support their viewpoint.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
I have a couple theories on what drives these people. One, it’s a lot easier for a scientist and the global warming alarmists to get funding with scaremongering and doomsday scenarios. If the sales pitch were “to date, we don’t really have any compelling evidence but we would like to keep looking into it” The government grants and philanthropic donations dry up. The second is a modern day syndrome I call “Since I have free time on my hands, I need to be part of a significant world changing movement” (a bit wordy but it fits). Freedom, capitalism and the innovation that stems from it have allowed life’s basic necessities; food, water and shelter to be virtual after thoughts. These advancements have given people the time and means to pursue there passion and for the most part, this is a great thing. However, there are always unintended consequences. Like many, the environmentalists want their life’s to have purpose and the cause they have chosen is to save the planet. What could be more important! However, they are so convinced it’s real that any information contrary to their viewpoint is irrelevant. How dare anyone question the important work they’re doing.
Hey, nobody wants to destroy the environment and it’s good that we debate the effects, if any, human advancement has on the planet. Some basic regulations, over the years, have insured that we act more responsibly. The hardcore environmentalist movement has veered off the path with their uncompromising ability for civil debate. It’s this narrow mindedness and arrogance that actually hurts there cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
