Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Genocidal Duck Whisperers of the Post-Human Left
Pick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight Global Warming is a curious little item.
On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in "areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species."
The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.
PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.
PHE had been baked into Congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of "ensuring environmental sustainability".
Obama's budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the PHE budget request explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.
The budget is a blunt assertion of post-Human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.
When Obama's Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, "I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals."
Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.
Ducks don't talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-Human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck's back.
The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don't stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations than targeted abortion and birth control programs.
USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. "When couples can plan the number, timing, and spacing of their children, that helps the environment and the economy." said Beverly Johnson, chief of the Policy, Evaluation, and Communication Division of the USAID Office of Population and Reproductive Health.
Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don't believe in.
The post-Human left seeks to maintain a perpetual state of crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even horrifying solutions as the alternative to the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.
In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a Congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.
Like the Communists, the post-Human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming. Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming.
Environmentalists are even attempting to repeat their old trick by trying to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda. The Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming.
Paul Erlich, whose book was prompted by the Sierra Club and carried the same title as Hugh Moore's tract, wrote that, "We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control." PHE jettisons agricultural development for its exact opposite, but otherwise it maintains the same formula of tying population control to a shifting collection of crisis agendas.
Typical of PHE's intersection of environmentalism and eugenics,the Wilson Center cites a report which claims that "the effect of a 40 percent reduction in CO2 emissions per capita in developed countries between 2000 and 2050 would be entirely offset by the increase in emissions attributable to expected population growth in poorer countries over this period."
The only way to fight Global Warming is Third World population control and eventually First World population control.
Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.
Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.
Not only do the environmentalists kill, but they profit from the deaths of their victims.
Elliot Morley, UK Labour's Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels”. Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK's Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.
As she said, the formula was "for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’".
When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed Global Warming and "careless farming" for the floods that they themselves had engineered.
Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed Global Warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people "who don't like to end up in flames" should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.
California's drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on Global Warming.
Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.
The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-Human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.
The post-Human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-Human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.
The UN Renounces Biofuels
I had to check to be sure that it was not yet April Fools Day. Surely our friends in the UK would not be so unkind as to mislead their unrepentant ex-colonists over here, would they? The March 23, 2014 Telegraph carried this article stating that “Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns.” The United Nations said that?
Of course a lot of other people have been saying that for years. In 2007, near-riots took place in Mexico over the increase in corn meal prices triggered by corn for automobile biofuel alcohol. Even Al Gore fessed-up in 2010 that his idea for corn ethanol was a “bad idea” prompted by his presidential ambitions.
What about the U.S. armed forces now committed to run on green biofuels? What about the U.S. Air Force? What to tell the Navy?
What to tell the EPA which has mandated the use of nonexistent stocks of biofuels, and fines consumers for not using the nonexistent fuel?
The day of reckoning seems to have come for all these acolytes of the green goddess. The U.N. IPCC, the self-declared expert on all things climate, has finally seen the light of reason and perhaps the multitudes of the food-starved. The new mantra seems to be easier to swallow…”biofuels bad.”
T. Boone Pickens: I’ve lost my a** in wind power
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens boasted of his oil, gas, wind and solar bona fides — and accused the president of not just having a poor national energy policy, but of having no national energy policy at all (h/t NewsBusters).
Co-host Mika Brzezinski said that domestic oil production is up, and asked her guest what the Obama administration has done that is good concerning energy.
“Well, they don’t have an energy policy,” answered Pickens. Brzezinski followed by asking if Obama has done anything to increase oil production. He replied, “It has nothing to do with the administration…We’ve gotten someplace, but it’s because of technology advanced by the industry.”
“What’s getting ready to happen to you,” offered Pickens, “the horizontal drilling and the multiple frack zones in it, that’s all going, it’s going to be exported away from America. Is that bad? No, it’s not bad. It’s an industry developed here, share with other people, develop reserves.”
“Let me tell you,” Pickens continued, “you are looking at a fundamental change in energy globally is what you have. The OPEC nations are going to have the power taken away from them that they’ve enjoyed for the last twenty years.”
Pickens also said he couldn’t think of a single time in the last 40 years when government truly facilitated energy production and said he knows not to expect the advancement of any kind of coherent policy before the election because “Obama’s hands are tied.” “The greenies and the Left” would punish Obama for any defection, for any kind of support (or at least lack of punishment) for oil and gas production, even though “the jobs are in the oil and natural gas industry.”
It was unclear precisely what policy Pickens was promoting, but, for all that he’s arguably invested more than anyone else in renewable energy, he made it clear he doesn’t think the time to transition to wind and solar is now:
“I’m in the wind business … I’ve lost my ass in the business.”
Host Joe Scarborough said laughing, “You’ve invested more in alternative energy than anybody else.”
“Exactly,” replied Pickens. “My issue is not political. I mean, this is an opportunity for America to advance, get on the back of cheap energy and recover your economy. It can be done, but we have no plan.”
Pickens continued, “Obama needs to go in, study it, look at it, and decide what an energy plan is, and then go forward with it. He needs to explain to his people, ‘Hey, we can get on everything green. We can get on everything renewable. Then the cost of power will go up ten times.’ So be careful when you start fooling with it. Know what you’re working with.”
With that last comment, Pickens hit the nail on the head: At some point, the president and all those responsible for the nation’s energy policies have to decide whether affordability or renewability should take priority. Private companies can and should be investing in renewable energy, but government shouldn’t be propping them up — and government certainly shouldn’t be trying to force a transition to fuels that are presently economically unviable.
Given the abundance of clean, affordable natural gas, the idea that we have to choose between “dirty” fossil fuels and “clean” renewables is obsolete. The choice is actually between a clean, affordable fossil fuel and clean, but expensive renewables. Once we recognize natural gas as the ideal bridge fuel, we’ll then have a choice between a government-based or market-based method of incentivizing the transition. That’s where Pickens and I depart: He’s fine with subsidies for natural gas, whereas I think the market will eventually take care of the transition itself.
Obama administration propagandist and WaPo "reporter" Juliet Eilperin chose... poorly
If you missed the kerfuffle that's erupted between Power Line's John Hinderaker and the execrable Washington Post's propaganda machine, well, check this out.
On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin titled “The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.” ...
So Thursday evening, I wrote about the Post article here. I pointed out that Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaser of tar sands land; that Koch will not be a user of the pipeline if it is built; and that construction of the Keystone Pipeline would actually be harmful to Koch’s economic interests, which is why Koch has never taken a position on the pipeline’s construction. The Keystone Pipeline, in short, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Koch brothers.
My post garnered a great deal of attention, and Mufson and Eilperin undertook to respond to it here... [their] response attempted to explain “Why we wrote about the Koch Industries [sic] and its leases in Canada’s oil sands.” Good question! What’s the answer?
The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.
So in the Post’s view, it is acceptable to publish articles that are both literally false (Koch is the largest tar sands leaseholder) and massively misleading (the Keystone Pipeline is all about Koch Industries), if by doing so the paper can “stir and inflame public debate in this election year?” I can’t top Jonah Goldberg’s comment on that howler:
By this logic any unfair attack posing as reporting is worthwhile when people try to correct the record. Why not just have at it and accuse the Kochs of killing JFK or hiding the Malaysian airplane? The resulting criticism would once again provide “strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”
Let me offer an alternative explanation of why the Washington Post published their Keystone/Koch smear: 1) The Washington Post in general, and Mufson and Eilperin in particular, are agents of the Left, the environmental movement and the Democratic Party. 2) The Keystone Pipeline is a problem for the Democratic Party because 60% of voters want the pipeline built, while the party’s left-wing base insists that it not be approved. 3) The Keystone Pipeline is popular because it would broadly benefit the American people by creating large numbers of jobs, making gasoline more plentiful and bringing down the cost of energy. 4) Therefore, the Democratic Party tries to distract from the real issues surrounding the pipeline by claiming, falsely, that its proponents are merely tools of the billionaire Koch brothers–who, in fact, have nothing to do with Keystone one way or the other. 5) The Post published its article to assist the Democratic Party with its anti-Keystone talking points.
Which frames a very interesting contrast. The Keystone Pipeline is by no means the only energy-related controversy these days. “Green” energy is also highly controversial. “Green” energy is controversial, in part, because, unlike the Keystone Pipeline, it harms the consumer: solar and wind energy are inefficient, and therefore raise energy costs to consumers. “Green” energy is also controversial because it harms taxpayers: because they are inefficient, solar and wind energy can survive only through taxpayer-funded subsidies. Further, the federal government has invested in numerous “green” energy projects that have gone bankrupt, sticking taxpayers with the tab. Solyndra is only one of a number of such debacles.
“Green” energy is also controversial because it has been used to enrich government cronies. Let’s take, for instance, the billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer has made much of his fortune by using his government connections to secure support for uneconomic “green” energy projects that have profited him, to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is explained here, Tom Steyer is a bitter opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. His financial interests, in “green” energy and perhaps also in pre-pipeline oil sources like BP, stand to benefit if Keystone is killed.
Haven’t heard much about Tom Steyer, you say? Maybe that’s because he isn’t heavily involved in politics. Heh–just kidding. Steyer, as you probably know, is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This year, he has pledged to contribute $100 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, as long as they toe the line on environmental issues–which includes, presumably, taxpayer support for “green” energy and opposition to Keystone.
So the Post could have written a very different story about the Keystone Pipeline. The Post could have written that opposition to the pipeline is being funded in large part by a billionaire who has a personal financial interest in the pipeline not being built. And that’s not all! The billionaire is a political crony who has used his connections in Washington to get rich and to fleece consumers and taxpayers. Now, with Keystone, he is doing it again! How is that for a story that would “stir and inflame public debate in this election year”?
The Post, of course, didn’t write that story...
Hinderaker observes that the Post has written glowing puff pieces about Tom Steyer. Oh, and that John Podesta -- head of the Center for American Progress -- is a cheerleader for Steyer for (yes, you guessed it) Energy Secretary. Neither Steyer nor Eilperin happened to mention that Steyer would benefit financially -- in a major way -- from nixing the Keystone pipeline.
Further, "reporter" Juliet Eilperin is married to Andrew Light, who opines on climate policy for the Center for American Progress, the Marxist front group that has spent a year attacking private citizens like the Koch brothers.
Oh, and Eilperin's husband is also a member of the Obama administration, serving as "Senior Adviser to the Special Envoy on Climate Change in the Department of State" (the title alone is proof that the budget for the Department of State needs to be slashed by 80 percent).
So Eilperin quoted her husband's boss in a puff piece on radical billionaire leftist Tom Steyer, who would benefit greatly from the death of Keystone.
Hinderaker adds one additional data-point: Tom Steyer sits on the board of the Center for American Progress.
My opinion is that the Washington Post is not so much a news organization as it is a 24-by-7 infomercial for the radical Left.
New Noah epic awash in flood of criticism for green agenda and taking liberties with Bible
Hollywood studio adds "artistic licence" warning for "the least biblical biblical film ever made" starring Russell Crowe as Noah
It is truly a Hollywood epic of biblical proportions, the original disaster story of the man chosen by God to undertake the greatest rescue in history before an apocalyptic flood engulfs the world.
But even before it opens in America this week and Britain on April 4, Noah, a $130 million blockbuster with Russell Crowe in the lead role, is already awash in a turbulent sea of controversy.
The film, packed with special effects based around a massive replica arc built in Long Island near New York, also stars Sir Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah and Emily Watson, the Harry Potter actress, as Noah's adopted daughter.
Noah's director Darren Aronofsky, a self-described atheist who made the Oscar-nominated hit The Black Swan, has described the movie as is "the least biblical biblical film ever made" and called Noah "the first environmentalist". According to one early review, the name "God" is not actually spoken at any stage.
Now, amid a wave of criticism from some Christian groups about its loose interpretation of a sacred script, the Paramount studio has taken the unusual step of issuing an "explanatory message" to accompany marketing material.
It notes that while the film is "inspired by the story of Noah... artistic licence has been taken". And it adds, for anyone unclear about the source material: "The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis." It has also highlighted praise for the film by some Christian leaders.
After advance test screenings, there were complaints that the film did not adhere strictly enough to the Old Testament verses and portrays Noah as an environmental crusader to deliver a secular ecological doomsday message.
"The insertion of the extremist environmental agenda is a problem," said Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters group.
The Pope was dragged into the debate when Crowe tried but failed to secure a private audience during a recent visit to Rome to promote the film there.
The famously rabble-rousing star even sent a series of pleading messages to the pontiff's Twitter account urging him to watch the "fascinating" film.
The Vatican quashed both proposals. Rev Federico Lombardi, the spokesman, said that the Pope would not watch the film and nor would the Noah team Crowe be granted an audience.
Aronofsky's version of Noah is described as a "dark parable about sin, justice and mercy" in which Noah must decide who is good enough to make it on the boat that will save humanity. But Paramount has now issued its note of "explanation" for viewers.
"While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide," it states.
Crowe has also addressed the criticisms, saying that the film was not intended to be a "Sunday school story" and would challenge viewers' understanding of the Bible.
Brian Godawa, a Hollywood screenwriter and commentator on Christian issues, was one of the first to raise religious alarms after seeing an early version of the script.
In an article titled Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist Wacko, he said the director transformed a scriptural story into "environmental paganism" by blaming the Great Flood on man's "disrespect" for the environment.
It is not of course the first time that Hollywood epics have come under fire from some biblical scholars for their interpretation of the scriptures. Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments both faced similar criticism, And even strict adherents to the Bible note a problem in trying to make a film out of the story of Noah - it is just 40 verses in length, which would make for about 10 minutes on screen.
"Noah is a very short section of the Bible with a lot of gaps, so we definitely had to take some creative expression in it," producer Scott Franklin told Entertainment Weekly. "But I think we stayed very true to the story and didn't really deviate from the Bible, despite the six-armed angels."
In a effort to stymie the criticism, Paramount has just released a new eight-minute promotional video called Noah Featurette running praise from Christian leaders for the film.
"Movies aren't meant to preach. Movie's aren't sermons, and so if they can bring up the topic and start conversations, that's a good movie," said Karen Covell, founder of the Hollywood Prayer Network. "And this one made me ask questions."
Phil Cooke, a Christian media producer and consultant, who has advised the studio on the film, said: "Christians have to stop looking at Hollywood as the enemy, and start reaching out.
Missionaries have discovered that you don't change minds by criticism, boycotts or threats. You change minds by developing a relationship and a sense of trust."
Christians in America and Britain will at least have the chance to reach their own conclusions about whether the film takes too many liberties with the account of Noah's ark and the great flood, a story that features in varying forms in many major world religions.
For cinema-goers in many Muslim countries, there will be no such opportunity. Noah has already been banned there because it depicts a Koranic prophet, a taboo in the Islamic world.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 4:31 PM