Why Aren't Humans Considered Part of the Environment?

I am going to pose the argument that radical left wing environmentalists (and I include the Obamanation in this group) have embraced an agenda or worldview in which they separate the human race from their concept of "the environment." In effect, they hold views which pit the human race against the environment and, obviously, side against the human race. By embracing these radical views and supporting their policies, one must necessarily condemn the human race to death -- or, at least, to destitution and slavery -- and actively seek (or wish for) global genocide the likes of which we have never seen.

Is my view extreme? Yes, and purposely so. You will find most of my complaints against liberalism exist on a philosophical level. While I disagree with their policies, hypocracy and propensity toward corruption, I am far more concerned with the philosophical implications of their beliefs, the mental illness required to consciously hold those beliefs, and the extreme ignorance and/or cruelty they must possess to ennact those beliefs. While there may be nothing cruel or crazy about wanting to conserve the environment, tax citizens, or coddle the poor, the core philosophy that leads them to these conclusions is based on self-loathing and a genocidal desire.

Today we're talking about the environment.

Drought in California
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11801625

In this news story you will read about the 3-year drought which has cost California billions of dollars already. If you are not aware of the situation in California -- they are bankrupt, have applied for billions of dollars in federal aid, have frequent and widespread losses of electricity, and yearly bouts with the deadliest forest fires in North America.

They are also one of the most liberal states, and home to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, third in line to the Presidency and one of the most rabid liberal Democrats in American history.

The problem that this story outlines is the drought. Besides costing the state money, it is bankrupting farmers, greatly decreasing potential food supply, raising unemployment and generally causing the kind of local suffering one would expect when any local industry is savaged.
"We have a water system built for 18 million people. We now have 38 million people." The words of the Governator.

In a nation as technologically advanced, innovative and eager for work as ours, the solution to this problem should be simple. Bring in more water, irrigate better.

Wrong. Because California has some of the strictest environmental laws in the nation. Building a new or better dam is illegal. New or better irrigation techniques are illegal. Bringing water to these farms, orchards and fields is ILLEGAL.

And if it is not bad enough that existing laws make it illegal to improve the quality of human life in California, lets look at the left wing's response to the current crisis:

CA: State's in a drought, but it's not the worst ever
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2197864/posts

That is the whole of the environmentalists' response. This isn't the worst drought ever, so too bad for you. (Of course, if it WAS the worst drought ever, that wouldn't change anything either.)

I don't feel sorry for Californians. They elected these monsters into power, and have inflicted the rest of the nation with one of the worst. They should serve as an example to the rest of the country. But please note that in their own state, filled with their own followers and activists, the environmentalists remain true to their belief that the human race should rather suffer than make even the smallest alteration to the environment.

The same philosophy applies to the annual wild fires. Environmental regulations forbid the state of California from using controlled fires or brush removal to clear out the billions of dead and dry bramble that cause every minor fire to rage into an inferno covering millions of acres and destroying property and lives. Even the Native Americans were wise enough to thin out these very same forests to prevent catastrophic blazes.

But, oh no, not environmentalists. Better that human firefighters burn and human homes are destroyed and suffering comes to people all over the state (and other states) than to have human beings clear out dead trees, thereby "changing" the environment.

We all know how radical left wing environmentalists feel about the consumption of fuel. And we all know how Al Gore flies around the world in a jet so he can tell people in different places to quit burning oil. Here is a, admitted biased, rant with some facts about Nancy Pelosi's "conservation" of fuel:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090311/cm_uc_crmmax/op_199300;_ylt=AovILPCGr1BAOdFsHPv9maD9wxIF

(In case you don't want to click and read it, it goes into some detail about her abuse of the Speaker's priviledge of being flown around on a military jet. Please note, I am not complaining about her use of fuel to get around. I do want to point out her hypocracy in demanding others conserve natural resources while SHE wastes them unneccesarily.)

Finally, we have the Obamanation on the destructive cap-and-trade policy he is still pushing. This is the concept of "carbon credits" whereby companies will be "capped" at a certain amount of carbon dioxide output per year, and those that will not need all of their "credits" can "trade" them to other companies that need more.

"Emissions trading" on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

The results of this will be -- and are INTENDED to be -- skyrocketing prices of energy costs FOR CONSUMERS. That would be, you and me -- anyone who pays an electricity bill, anyone who buys a manufactured product, anyone who buys gasoline. Here is a bit about the Obamanation gleefully bragging about how cap-and-trade will raise all of our costs:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/11/02/audio-obamas-cap-and-trade-policy-so-aggressive-it-will-bankcrupt-coal-powered-plants.php

Now here is the same information from other people (since the Obamanation is a compulsive liar):

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/3/3/what-obamas-cap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123022554346.htm

So, during a collapsing economy (which he is just making worse with spending), Obama's current plan STILL is to raise EVERYONE'S costs, all across the board. This is another example of environmental interests seeking to punish the human race for existing, with the skewed faith that doing so somehow helps the environment.

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario:

Assume this cap-and-trade works. Our unemployment rises, millions of Americans are pushed over the line INTO poverty, but before American businesses all go bankrupt for lack of customers, they have paid billions of dollars into the Obamanation's energy tax plan, making Obama and his left wing allies filthy rich. Suppose all of this happens.

With no way to get "richer" once they've drained the economy of every penny, to what depths will they (the Obamanation and radical liberals) sink in an effort to take from us? Will we see a day when the carbon dioxide we exhale in the normal operation of breathing is taxed? Will we be told -- forced -- to labor day after day to "earn" the right to breathe in their world? Will there be calls for everyone to hold their breath for one minute every hour to stave off the effects of "global warming?"

The radical liberal establishment has declared a war against the human race, and they've done so, partially, by turning people's opinions against a necessary biological process (exhalation). They do not quite have the power yet to regulate our breathing, control our reproduction rate, etc., but with the help of the Obamanation, they are making headway toward that level of control. When they have it, who will have the resources to stop them from the murder of millions of human beings, either actively or through further outlawing of the basic necessities of life.

If you think that my fears are extreme, unfounded, or a ridiculous scare tactic, ask yourself whether you, ten years ago, ever imagined there would be a day when it would be illegal to bring water to farms in desperate need of it.

My Current Positions on Environmentalism

I am preparing to post an argument about a disturbing theme I see in the realm of radical left environmentalism. Before I do this, I thought it prudent to outline my stance on some popular issues so that my opinions are not assumed to be other than they are.

This is what I believe:

1. The human race developed over time through evolution and natural selection.

2. The Earth is a tumultuos chemistry set in which the weather and broader environment are constantly changing.

3. The human race does not understand the environment enough yet to make far-reaching proclaimations about climate change, its causes and effects, or what can be done to alter them.

4. Polluting the environment is harmful to the human race, and societies (not governments) should take action to minimize pollution everywhere that it is plausible to do so.

5. Scientific fact is not a "consensus." While scientists may reach consesus on issues that are possible or probable, these issues are not "fact" until all data always points to the same conclusion and all rational-minded men and women will obtain the same results from the same expirements.

6. Scientists must be aware of the difference between accidental and essential causes. For example, let us say an acorn grows into a sapling, and with water and sunlight that sapling becomes a tree. Water and sunlight are accidental causes of that tree, but they are not the essential cause of the tree. Water and sunlight exist in many other places and that tree, or trees like it, do not grow. It is the acorn (seed) which is the essential cause of the tree. Even further, one can record the degree of shade under the tree, and measure how the degree of shade increases in relation to the growth of the tree. Yet the shade under it is not a cause of the tree by any means.

It is far too easy in a world as complex as ours for amateur (or simply mistaken) scientists to record data and assign causes incorrectly. When so-called scientists are being paid by organizations with a financial stake in the outcome, incorrect results should be suspected. ESPECIALLY when there is other data that refutes it.

From the Casebook of Ted Setter, P.I. ....

Who is Ariel Dane?

She is beautiful -- I know that much.

Classically beautiful, like Hollywood starlets used to be. The photo I have of her is black and white, just like the best photos of those Golden Age actresses.

She has sunset hair; golden brown and glowing crimson rays distracting you from the underlying dusk. Her eyes are green, I was told. In my photograph they look like silvered ice.

Who is Ariel Dane? The kind of woman you can't miss.

Her husband is a drunk.

I want to suspect him in her disappearance but I can't. He's not bright enough. He has nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. He makes a good living; she's a housewife. They have three kids in college. All artists; go figure.

She's the kind of woman you don't let go of.

The poor bastard is devastated. It's only hopelessness and that slick attorney of his that let him give up on the search.

Paycheck or not, I'm not giving up on you, Ariel Dane.

I'm not hopeless yet. I don't have a slick attorney.

I used to wake up knowing who I was.

Ted Setter, P.I. This is my office. This is my calendar. Make an appointment, come on in, tell me about your problems.

I'm not even sure where I am this morning. Woke up in my car because I rolled into town too late to find my way around. No 7-11 in sight, but this is the kind of city that should have them.

Desperation clings to the streets like last night's rain. But the puddles of it don't just lay there defeated. They drive around in their abused and lonely cars and hurry to catch the bus, carrying on as though they have something to carry on for. But their eyes tell another story.

Why did you come here, Ariel Dane?

There goes my whole case.

I roll down the window to blow smoke out of my car, and my only lead flies out into the street. A single sheet of white paper with a heartless three-line message scrawled in blue ink.

Mr. Dane doesn't believe she wrote it, and I can't say I blame him. I've never met her, but I don't believe it either. Not because it's too heartless, but because it's too brief.

Dennis, there is someone else. I won't be back. Please tell the kids I love them.

Ariel Dane didn't write this. But its hotel watermark is all I have to go on.

Religion on the Decline in America

According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), religious affiliation is down in the United States.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

Percentage of U.S. Adult Population (Religious Self-Identification)

Christians
1990 86.2
2001 76.7
2008 76.0

Other Religions
1990 3.3
2001 3.7
2008 3.9

Total Religious
1990 89.5
2001 80.4
2008 79.9

Non-Religious
1990 8.2
2001 14.2
2008 15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------

The general trend is also effecting newly established religions:

Obama Approval Ratings (2009)
% Approve
Jan 21 68
Feb 1 66
Feb 19 63
Mar 8 62

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------

What is our world coming to when blind faith in a really good public speaker can't solve the world's problems?

The First Post

So, I suppose the usual purpose of a blog is to get people to read it. If that's the case, here is why you should come back to mine:

I will be funny.
I will be offensive.
I will be honest.

No Teleprompter Required is a nod to Rush Limbaugh, who, either during or just before his speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) pointed out the difference between himself and Mr. Obama -- one of them can speak for hours about his opinions, beliefs and knowledge "off the cuff" while the other has to read off a Teleprompter.

Now, I realize all Presidents use speechwriters and present their speeches with notes of one kind or another. I believe that the greater point of Rush Limbaugh's comparison, however, is the difference between conservatives and liberals. That difference is: one holds a philosophy that can be proudly spoken out loud (We believe in liberty, individuality, personal responsibility, a strong defense, etc.) while the other holds a philosophy that must be obfuscated to sell to the masses (They believe in government control, sameness, blaming others whenever possible, kowtowing to foreign aggressors.)

Conservatives believe in results. Liberals believe in good intentions.

Like Rush Limbaugh giving his long speech with no Teleprompter, this blog will be about telling you what I really believe and know, not an attempt to manipulate you into agreeing with me with sophistry and rhetoric. I am not a down-the-line Republican, and if I ever called Rush's show he would berate me for my Atheism. I'm okay with that, and I won't pretend to be religious to make myself more popular with fellow conservatives.

I don't vote Republican because I'm a Republican. I vote Republican because the U.S. cannot afford -- as we are learning right now -- liberal Democrats in power.