- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
If you question the current "science" that wants us to believe that we are killing the planet with so-called "greenhouse gases," then you are guilty of a most horrible crime. The unintentionally hilarious Paul Krugman explains:
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet.
"Treason against the planet"? Mr. Krugman certainly has a flair for the dramatic.
Let's set aside the fact that the global warming scare is based entirely on junk science, an insatiable lust for taxpayer dollars, and a desire to alter the very fabric of Western civilization. Even if, by some chance, in our wildest imaginations, Earth really did warm a few degrees, I still fail to see how that would be a bad thing.
The way I see it, the melting of the polar ice caps would mean more water for drinking and irrigation. Once-frozen wastelands would become fertile farmlands capable of feeding hundreds of millions of people. Sure, Duluth, Minnesota, might become the new spring break destination of choice, the Winter Olympics might have to be put on hold indefinitely, and Paul Krugman might have to shave his beard, but I prefer to look on the bright side.
The subject of abortion deals with the inevitable clash between property rights and the right to life. Given that predicament, how should this conflict be resolved? To put it in more crass terms, if protecting the rights of one means "violating" the rights of another, whose rights should take precedence?
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware U.N. inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.
Bush told Blair the U.S. had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in U.N. colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of U.N. resolutions.
It is has come to be accepted that who serve the state are entitled to be ushered from this world in all manner of pomp and circumstance at taxpayer expense -- and that includes dogs.
The NAACP is at it again, this time threatening a boycott (big surprise) of Florida businesses that display the Confederate flag. From the South Florida Times:
Civil rights groups on Thursday put city and business leaders here on a 30-day notice that unless they meet a list of demands -- including a ban on the display of the Confederate flag at taxpayer-funded events -- they will be subjected to protests and boycotts.
More than 100 people converged on the steps of Homestead City Hall for a press conference organized by clerical, civil rights and community groups who submitted the list of demands.
"We are ready to talk with the city of Homestead and the Homestead Chamber of Commerce concerning our action items. And our issues are with them, and not with the Sons of the Confederacy," said Bishop Victor T. Curry, president of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP. "If the Sons of the Confederacy want to have their own parade, we are not trying to stifle freedom of speech or freedom of expression. We just don't want to see racism walking down the streets of Homestead, being funded by the taxpayers."
Curry warned business leaders that if their demands are not met by the 30-day deadline, the controversy would escalate to another level.
"We want the mayor and the council, and the chamber, to do the right thing. We hope that we could start this with a positive dialogue. But we're also ready to move from dialogue to demonstration," Curry said.
"We are also prepared to say to the businesses that support the chamber, that if you want to offend the people of this great county and community, then we will seek other places to spend our dollars," Curry said. "We will not pay you to offend us."
It's a wonder the NAACP has any shred of credibility left.
Those of us who view smoking bans as draconian affronts to private property rights have often asked, "If tobacco is so destructive, why not ban it altogether?" Admittedly, we aren't all that sincere when we ask that question. We all know the reason tobacco hasn't been banned is because the unhappy souls who despise smokers are greedy unhappy souls, and they need the revenue generated by that evil plant to fund their misguided crusade to shape the rest of the country in their own image.
Well, wouldn't you know it? Some principled idealist is actually talking about banning tobacco -- and he happens to be a Republican. Newsmax.com reports:
Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, is calling for an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
"What we should be doing is banning tobacco," the Oklahoma Republican declared on the Senate floor during a debate on a tobacco regulation bill.
"Nobody up here has the courage to do that. It is a big business. There are millions of Americans who are addicted to nicotine."
So, Senator Coburn fancies himself as someone with courage. Well, since he wants to use the most powerful government in the world to crack down on private businesses and consumers, he can afford to be brave.
Too bad he hasn't the cojones to take his oath of office seriously and actually abide by the Constitution he swore to support and defend. I guess there's a fine line between being brave and just plain insane.
"Treason against the planet"? Mr. Krugman certainly has a flair for the dramatic.
"Treason against the planet"? Mr. Krugman certainly has a flair for the dramatic.
