I AM THE WALRUS
The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States, as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global warming...the Pacific walrus.
Well, you really didn't expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science. Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat, resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some 20,000 to 25,000 bears!
In a world where success only furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best predictions of climate models. "As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus," she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire" circumstances now moves forward on the walrus.
But how can they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all? The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and 250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a new walrus survey. "We do have a population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon," he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition." Why does that statement make me skeptical?
Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of deaths. One AP news article described how "scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes" and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that "3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance?
But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters? Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link:
As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.
Thats 3,000 to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000 they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious "inconvenient" truth?
So lets be sure we understand this. The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger, than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange reason, this comes to mind:
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now? Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one!
The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me, the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax.
Its very important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7 paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama has in mind:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." B.H. Obama
Mr. Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it) fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures. They just want control. We must not give it to them!
This environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration.
Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it. During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production. This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our destruction.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin.
And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse, it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it with!
Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another "inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is going for these days?
If organizations such as these can see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:
"guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."
I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we going to do about it...or them?
As the Psalmist said: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they are saying?...
Sunday, June 15, 2008
I AM THE WALRUS
Sunday, June 1, 2008
It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.
All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.
It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich.
Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs.
The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth.
In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that.
If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive.
It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!!
That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy.
When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control.
Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that?
The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country.
This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes.
If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else.
Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:"