Conservation and Eugenics - The environmental movement's dirty secret

Excerpt reproduced with permission

by Charles Wohlforth

THE RAIN HAD JUST STOPPED in the little eastern Kansas town of Osawatomie when thirty thousand people, gathered in an atmosphere not unlike that of a country fair, fell quiet. Their hero, former president Teddy Roosevelt, climbed atop a kitchen table and began to speak in a high, almost falsetto voice, orating amid cheering for ninety minutes. When finished, he had delivered the most controversial and influential address of his career, in which he described a radical new program that was both denounced and celebrated in newspapers across the country. The date was August 31, 1910.

The New Nationalism Speech, as it came to be known, emphasized conservation, as did most of Roosevelt’s speeches written by his friend Gifford Pinchot, who had been his conservation chief for the two terms of his presidency. But it also newly placed the “moral issue” and “patriotic duty” of conservation into the context of a racial conversation, as well as a much broadened concept of progressivism.

Read the rest at Orion

Gloria Steinem - About as unenlightened as they get

It is often said that you never learn anything new from someone who always agrees with you. I would like to amend that with, "you also never learn anything new from someone that's uneducated."

Responding to Sarah Palin on Katie Couric's panel of the unenlightened, Gloria Steinem says:

"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't have an abortion."

Really? Says who? Well, Gloria Steinem says and she further states in regards to Carly Fiorina:

"I defend their right to be wrong."

So let me make sure I understand this. If a woman is pro choice and chooses life, then she is wrong and not a feminist?

This ranks right up there with the ten most stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. What I seen from the "interview" with Couric's "enlightened" panel was fear.

Watch these imbeciles cackle. The only thing missing from this "enlightened" panel is a cauldron:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Dial 911 and you may die

Let me ask you a question:

If a criminal targets you, would you rather have a telephone or a gun?

You may say that the government promises to protect you, but, is it an empty one? The short answer is yes. The only guarantee of who will be at the crime scene is the criminal and you, with the forensic team coming later to photograph your body then make a chalk outline.

Let me ask you another question:

If a criminal is looking to target a victim, what's the likelihood that he or she would target someone they think may be armed?

If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answer. This is not to say that a criminal high on drugs, or desperate wouldn't make an attempt, but, what's the likely outcome? People that have a criminal intent don't waste time and will choose the time and place to do their deed and someone bent on committing mass murder will most likely pick a place that is a gun free area, such as a school or mall. So, "gun free" zones are in reality "crime spree" zones.

So here's the rub. Do we allow government to "carefully" control guns, or do we allow law abiding citizens to own them? Or, as the pinhead elitists at the New York Times sees it, "Americans are better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth." Far be it from little ol' me to make an observation, but, NOBODY has the right to deprive the means of someone defending themselves.

I would ask the rhetorical question as to how many school or mall shootings it will take to convince gun control advocates that criminals are not deterred by gun laws. But, it wouldn't do any good. However, I will ask these self appointed intellectuals how we would be better off in a gunless country. Criminals would like nothing better than to live in a society where they have the upper hand.

Since these "erudite" intellectuals seem to have all the answers, they conveniently ignore dozens of studies reviewed by the National Academy of Science and couldn't find one single instance where gun regulations reduced violent crime or murder. As a matter of fact, when Washington D.C. enacted their handgun law, violent crime sharply increased.

So, the next time you hear that another house was broken into in your neighborhood, look at a photograph of a handgun and look at your phone. Then ask yourself, "Which of these poses a better chance of surviving a criminal threat?"

Follow the paper and money trail

Potential explosive evidence uncovered by JoAnn Moretti at Blogster indicates that there may be possible criminal activity involving BP and Obama.

Maybe it's possible that the Congressional version of the Inquisition may reveal the connections between BP and the Democrat Party, at least according to JoAnn Moretti at Blogster. She has apparently uncovered a paper trail that purportedly connects BP, Haliburton, Deepwater Horizon, Citigroup, Goldman-Sachs, and the US. Government to a company called NALCO.

Looking at her evidence, we see some well known names in finance, Warren Buffet, Tony Rezko, George Soros and Barack Hussein Obama...mmm.mmmm.mmm.

According to Moretti, there is a concerted effort by these people and corporations to delay fixing the spewing oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Though, why she makes such an assertion doesn't seem to be forthcoming. According to Obama, he was on top of the disaster on day one when SWAT teams were deployed to "secure" the area the very day it happened, yet, his regime later claimed that they didn't know the extent of the leak.

Although, Obama did say that he was pulling back to let BP handle the leak, because they were better equipped, may explain why the government seems to be taking a lackadaisical attitude towards fixing the problem. However, BP's stance seems to be just as suspect. According to JoAnn Moretti:

NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.

If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.

Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).

The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water's surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.

NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)

There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise.

The Dolphins, Whales, Manatees, Sea Turtles and fish suffocate and die. The coastal regions, salt marshes, tourist attractions and the shore front properties are being destroyed, possibly permanently.The air quality is diminished. The Gulf of Mexico fishing industry is decimated.

All to create a need for their expensive and extremely profitable poison.

Moreover, there seems to be evidence that the corporate fatcats intended to maximize their financial gains by using Rahm Emmanuel's mantra, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Whatever the accuracy of JoAnn Moretti's assertions, if any of this turns out be fractionally true, this would be the death knell of President Obama's reign.

Ten Question Constitution Quiz

How well do you know the Constitution? Take this 10 question quiz to see.

[QUIZZIN 1]

Obtaining natural resources and transporting it is risky business

Let's posit three questions:

When a tractor trailer that's transporting dangerous chemicals and jackknifes on a highway, does the government shut down future transportation of dangerous chemicals?

When a passenger airliner crashes, does the government shut down all flights and airports?

When a freight train carrying deadly gas derails and spills the contents, causing a nearby town to be evacuated, does the government cease all further transportation of deadly gas and the railroads?

You get my point and you already know the answer.

Yet, with the Deepwater Horizon explosion resulting in millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, the president claims this is the reason why we need to stop using oil and use "renewable" energy sources; in other words, in his ideological view, cap and trade needs to be made into law. Well, Rahm Emmanuel did say never let a crisis go to waste.

In his 18 minute, gibberish laden speech he asserted that oil companies are compelled to drill miles off shore in deep waters because "oil is a finite" source. Not quite. The reason why they have to drill that far off the coast, is due to environmentalist whackjobs that strong armed politicians into forcing them there.

He then made the statement, "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required." Not only is that unconstitutional, he doesn't have that kind of authority. Being a Constitutional professor, he should know this, but, seeing how he thinks it has a negative Bill of Rights, it's obvious why he wouldn't know it.

And he caps off his feigned outrage by proclaiming that measures will be taken to make sure nothing like this happens again. I realize that his sycophants thinks he's the messiah, but I doubt he can prevent something like this happening again. After all, he did say his powers weren't unlimited.

The fact is that blame can be spread everywhere, including the government. Particularly when the government turned down assistance from the Dutch on the third day of this disaster, citing the Jones Act that was created by Woodrow Wilson to protect labor unions. President Bush tossed this maritime law into the dust bin after Katrina, why Obama won't do it is most likely due to protecting his labor union support base.

The bottom line is cap the hole, clean the mess and then assign blame later.

Florida Dem Runs on Death Panel Platform

WEST PALM BEACH — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Maurice Ferre says the U.S. spends an "absurd" amount on end-of-life care and should gradually move to a universal health system in which the government controls costs by setting prices for medical procedures and capping expenditures based on age and medical condition.

Speaking to The Palm Beach Post editorial board today, Ferre said he would have voted for the health care overhaul approved by Congress and signed by President Obama this year as "a step in the right direction." He later said the "Medicare-for-everyone" system he favors should be phased in over about 25 years.

Read full article

White House to the Netherlands - Thanks, but no thanks

I am of the opinion that presidents get far too much blame for disasters when there's really not much they can do. However, when another country offers their expertise to help and the response they get is, "Thanks, but no thanks" is when the blame falls squarely on the Oval Office.

Three days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and was sent to Davy Jones' Locker, the Dutch offered assistance with as much of their resources and expertise as possible. According to Geert Veeser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks...’”

One can interpret the response from the White House any way they want to. I personally see it as a response of selfishness, in respect to  not wanting to show the world that America is too weak and incompetent to fix the problem ourselves. When not accepting the offer shows just the opposite. After all, and contrary to popular environmentalist beliefs, the Dutch gets most of their energy from offshore oil drilling and are resident experts at building dikes.

The official reason why the White House refused help from the Dutch is the Jones Act, a maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S. flagged ships, which has prevented Dutch ships with equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

And Veeser asked the right question in his response, “What’s wrong with accepting outside help? If there’s a country that’s experienced with building dikes and managing water, it’s the Netherlands.” I'm sure that this law could have been thrown out the window on this instance, particularly since hindsight is 20/20.

Then there is bureaucratic red tape. For instance, a Maine businessman by the name of John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn who has more than enough oil containment booms to assist in the effort. With the help of Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Governor John Baldacci, word was sent to the Secretary of Interior and NOAA that John Lapoint and Packgen could help.

On may 24, ABC reported this:

On May 2, Gov. Jindal requested that federal authorities and BP provide three million feet of absorbent boom, five million feet of hard boom and 30 “jack up” barges. Of that, less than 800,000 feet of hard boom has arrived — less than a fifth of the request. About 140,000 feet of that hard boom is sitting waiting for BP to tell contractors where to take it.

“It is clear we don’t have the resources we need to protect our coast, we need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply,” Jindal said today. “Let’s be clear, every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies.”

Lapoint made a risky decision and began manufacturing oil boom, thinking that his company could sell it to help in the containment and cleanup effort. He added shifts and employees, and started cranking out the oil boom right away. It was a huge financial risk, but he also figured that in an emergency of that magnitude, you had to act quickly, and figured that BP and the government would have to act quickly too.

Well, he thought wrong and the risk he took was all for naught. Why? Once again, the White House declined the help.

Oh, let's not forget this:

Glenn Beck's Founders Friday - African American Founders

I am 43 years old and at no time do I ever recall being taught this in grade school or high school. Why? Well, there are probably a variety of reasons, not least of which involves some pinhead, progressive "history" professors in the eighties who thought they knew better than those that were actually there when it happened.

Below are three parts of Glenn Beck's African American Founding Fathers.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

Uneducated Rep. Linda Sanchez cites white supremacist groups for AZ law

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif says that white supremacist groups are responsible for Arizona's new law that cracks down on illegal aliens. She told a Democrat Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups were influencing lawmakers to create laws that would lead to discrimination.

Sanchez, who is of Mexican descent stated, "There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups. It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics." (audio)

She also claims that "It creates a Jim Crow system where based on the color of your skin you could be treated as a second-class citizen or harassed based on how you look."

What she is trying to do is divert attention away from the original topic, or a logical fallacy called a red herring where the person attempts to change the subject. Unfortunately, for her, it pulls back the curtain of just how uneducated Linda Sanchez is.

Well, Linda, let's look at some history about the Jim Crow Laws and who created them.

Many people think that the Jim Crow laws began in 1890 when Mississippi wrote a disfranchisement provision into its state constitution. This is not quite correct and actually began shortly after the Civil War when most Southern states adopted "Black Codes", to limit the freedoms of former slaves. The reason why these "Black Codes" never gained momentum is because federal troops were in the former Confederate states during the reconstruction, as well as the recent passage of the 14th and the 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1875 and the three Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871. It's noteworthy to add that the Enforcement Act of 1871 is also referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act

The Jim Crow Laws were created by the Democrat Party (The White Mans Party) and were effective in 1876 and came to an end when the Civil and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, thanks to the Republican Party for pushing them through both houses of Congress.

Even though blacks were still elected to local offices during the 1880's, the Democrat Party were passing laws that forced voter registration and elections to be more restrictive.  As a result, participation of blacks and poor whites significantly decreased. Between 1890 and 1910, the former Confederate states enacted poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, as well as residency and record keeping requirements which disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites.

And it was all created by the Democrat Party, Linda. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know any of this because your agenda is to whitewash this history and replace with it your own.

You most likely haven't read SB1070. If you had and read our federal laws, you may just happen to notice that they very nearly mirror one another.

Here are some of OUR FEDERAL LAWS.

Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323] – Unlawfully bringing aliens to US and unlawful harboring illegal aliens. Fine: $3,000 for each alien.

Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] – Employing, Recruiting, or Referring Illegal Aliens for Jobs.

Sec. 274C. [8 U.S.C. 1324c] – Illegally Forging Documents for Illegal Immigrants or violate Identity Theft Laws.

Sec. 277. [8 U.S.C. 1327] – Aiding or Abetting Illegal Immigrants.

Sec. 312. [8 U.S.C. 1423] – Legal Immigrants Must Know English, US History, US Laws, and Principles.

Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] – Legal Immigrants Must Display Moral Character and No Crime Record.

Sec. 335. [8 U.S.C. 1446] – Legal Immigrants Must Be Investigated and Screened for past crimes and terrorism links.

Sec. 232 [8 U.S.C. 1252] -It is Illegal For Illegal Aliens to Bypass Medical and Physical Exams for illnesses and infectious diseases.

Sec. 250. [8 U.S.C. 1260] -Illegal Aliens Deported are ineligible for readmission to US Under Current Laws.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32] – It is Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to possess a firearm or ammunition.