Voting for Wildlife Extermination

By Paul Driessen

I would like to thank Paul for allowing me to re-publish his works. This first appeared here. RK

The latest justification for extending the industrial wind electricity production tax credit (PTC) is that we need an “all of the above” energy policy. The slogan falls flat, even when it’s expanded to “all of the above and below” – which is rarely the case with radical environmentalists and “progressive” politicians, who steadfastly oppose “any of the below” (ie, hydrocarbons). - technically, economically and environmentally - it should be implemented. If it flunks, it should be scrapped.

Industrial wind energy mandates, renewable portfolio standards, subsidies, feed-in tariffs and production tax credits fail every test. They flunk environmental standards disastrously. In fact, they are subsidizing the slaughter of countless eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, herons, cranes, egrets, other birds and bats.

The wind PTC epitomizes “you didn’t build it.” If any business “didn’t get there on your own,” or was “successful because, along the line,” somebody (in government) “gave you some help” – it is Big Wind.

Industrial wind energy has been mandated, propped up, subsidized, built and protected by government. Elected and unelected officials at the federal, state and local levels have given it every unfair advantage that taxpayer and ratepayer money, legal favors and exemptions, and crony corporatism could bestow upon it. Meanwhile, in numerous cases, the same legislative, regulatory, environmentalist and industrialist cronies have penalized and marginalized Big Wind’s hydrocarbon and nuclear competitors – often for the same reasons that are ignored with wind energy.

Industrial wind is actually our least sustainable energy resource.It requires perpetual subsidies to survive. The tax revenues it takes from productive sectors of the economy, the insufficient and unreliable nature of wind electricity, and the exorbitant electricity rates that wind turbines impose on factories and businesses, kill two to four jobs for every "green" job created. Wind is a net job loser .

Big Wind also imposes excessive environmental impacts. It requires vast amounts of raw materials and land for turbines, backup power and long transmission lines. The extraction and processing of rare earth metals and other materials devastates large agricultural, scenic and wildlife habitat areas and harms people’s health, especially in China. Worst, the turbines are returning numerous bird and bat species to the edge of extinction, after decades of patient, costly efforts to nurse them back to health.

These are not sparrows and pigeons killed by housecats. They are bats that eat insects and protect crops . They are some of our most important and magnificent raptors, herons, cranes, condors and other majestic sovereigns of our skies. They are being chopped out of the air and driven from numerous habitats.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC)and other experts estimate that well over 500,000 birds and countless bats are already being killed annually by turbines. The subsidized slaughter “could easily be over 500” golden eagles a year in our western states, Save the Eagles International biologist Jim Wiegand told me. Bald eagles are also being killed at alarming rates that could soon reach 1,000 per year.

In the 86-square-mile area blanketed by the Altamont Pass wind facility, no eagles have nested for over 20 years, and golden eagle nest sites have declined by half near the actual facility, even though both areas are prime eagle habitat, says Wiegand. Wildlife expert Dr. Shawn Smallwood estimates that 2,300 golden eagles have been killed by Altamont turbines over the past 25 years.

The wind industry keeps the publicly acknowledged death toll “low” and “acceptable” by employing deliberately flawed methodologies, says Wiegand. Companies have crews search around turbines that are not operating; search only within narrow radiuses of turbines, thus missing birds that were flung further by the impact or limped off to die elsewhere; search for carcasses only every 2-4 weeks, allowing scavengers to take most of them away; avoid using dogs to sniff for bodies; not count disabled or wounded birds and bats; and pick up carcasses, under the guideline of “slice, shovel and shut up.”

High security at most wind turbine sites makes independent analysis almost impossible, adds ABC wind energy coordinator Kelly Fuller. Even the faulty (fraudulent?) raw bird kill data are rarely made public and are difficult to access even through the Freedom of Information Act. Amazingly, the US Fish & Wildlife Service does not require that the information be made public. What little does get released is too often filtered, massaged and manipulated – and now the FWS may allow the industry to put even these suspect body counts into private data banks that would not be subject to FOIA.

The FWS and Justice Department prosecuted and fined oil companies for the unintentional deaths of just 28 small migratory birds (no raptors and no rare, threatened or endangered species) over several months throughout North Dakota. They fined ExxonMobil $600,000 for accidentally killing 85 birds over a five-year period in five states. But they have never prosecuted or penalized a single wind turbine company for its eco-slaughter. Now they are going much further.

The Service has proposed to grant “programmatic take” permits that would allow wind turbine operators to repeatedly, systematically, legally and “inadvertently” injure, maim and kill bald and golden eagles –turning what has been outrageously selective (non)enforcement of endangered species laws into a 007 license to kill. While the new rule “is not specifically designed for the wind industry” (as an industry spokesman helpfully pointed out), Big Wind will be by far the biggest beneficiary.

The FWS says it can do this based on illusory “advanced conservation practices” that are “scientifically supportable,” approved by the Service, and “represent the best available techniques to reduce eagle disturbance and ongoing mortalities to a level where remaining take is unavoidable and incidental to otherwise lawful activity.” The Service also claims “mitigation” and other “additional” measures may be implemented where necessary to “ensure the preservation” of eagles as a species.

When its goal is to restrict development, the FWS frequently defines species, subspecies or “distinct population segments” for sage grouse, spotted owls, “jumping mice” and other wildlife – or labels a species “imperiled” in a selected location, even when it is abundant in nearby locations. With eagles, the proposed “take” rules strongly suggest that the Service could easily say the presence of eagles in some parts of the Lower 48 States or even just Alaska would mean their preservation is ensured, even if they are exterminated or driven out of numerous habitats. (Ditto for other species imperiled by wind turbines.)

Attempts to “mitigate” impacts or establish new population segments will almost certainly mean imposing extra burdens, restrictions and costs on land owners and users outside of turbine-impact areas.

Another vital, majestic species being “sliced” back to the verge of extinction is the whooping crane, North America’s tallest bird. Since 2006, installed turbine capacity within the six-state whooping crane flyway has skyrocketed from 3,600 megawatts to some 16,000 MW – and several hundred tagged and numbered whooping cranes “have turned up missing and are unaccounted for,” says Wiegand. And yet, another 136,700 MW of new bird Cuisinarts are planned for these six states!

The Service knows this is happening, and yet turns a blind eye – and Big Wind is not about to admit that its turbines are butchering whooping cranes, bald eagles, Peregrine falcons, bats and other rare species.

This subsidized slaughter and legalized carnage cannot continue. Every vote to extend the PTC, or approve wind turbines in or near important bird habitats and flyways, is a vote for ultimate extinction of majestic and vital species in numerous areas all over the United States.

Wind energy is not green, eco-friendly, sustainable or sensible. Extending the subsidized slaughter is not something any members of Congress, state legislatures or county commissions – Republican or Democrat – should want to have on their conscience.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

###

Another Cancer Scaremonger

By Rich Kozlovich

Some weeks ago I spoke before the Cuyahoga County Council here in Ohio regarding their proposed legislation to ban pesticides on all county property. Their legislation started out saying pesticides are 'toxic' and 'carcinogenic'. When I asked five questions regarding recent events that required pesticide applications, and issues that were clearly going to become problematic without pesticides; I was accused of scare mongering. The old system of county governance was abandoned because of serious financial corruption. It has been replaced with philosophical corruption, and it permeates every level of government.

An Article appeared today entitled, Dem proposes bill allowing some products to be labeled 'cancer-free', by Pete Kasperowicz declaring that Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) on Wednesday proposed legislation that would allow companies to apply to the government to allow their products to bear a "cancer-free" label.

Deutch claims that "It's time to help consumers choose safer products for themselves and for their loved ones. That's why today I'm introducing the Cancer Free Label Act. My bill will give companies the chance to market to consumers the fact that the products that they make are free of carcinogens”….the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Product Safety Commission would set up rules for approving the use of "cancer-free" labels [stating] "This product does not contain known or likely carcinogens that increase your risk of cancer."

The article goes on to say that "Companies would have to send in a list of ingredients or substances used in the product. Agencies could approve the use of the label if it finds no carcinogens are used, and the company is making, storing and transporting the product in a way that does not pose a risk of cancer.  The bill also requires agencies to conduct random testing of products to ensure they are in fact composed of substances listed in the application. And, it allows agencies to charge a "reasonable fee" to administer the program.  Finally, the bill makes it illegal to label products as cancer-free without government approval, subject to a fine of no more than $100,000."

Well, I like it! Surprised? That is, I do have one caveat; I like it provided that the list of materials in the containers lists the chemicals in the food in the container also. If that's the case.....there won't be much sold since most of the carcinogens we are in contact with are naturally occurring in the food we eat. Furthermore, so many carcinogens are listed as 'Class "B" carcinogens. What does that mean? It means they don't really know if they cause cancer or not, they just 'think' that they 'might' cause cancer. We have to get over this chemo-phobia and these alleged links to cancer and any belief that the government ‘knows’ what everything does, including these much touted agencies like the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration or any of the others for that matter.

As for the EPA's method of determining whether something is carcinogenic or not; at this point I think it worthwhile to explore this issue of carcinogenic testing. The EPA bases it judgment on rodent testing. Make no mistake about this; a mouse isn’t a little man and using rodents that are genetically predisposed to growing tumors for testing and then exposing them massive doses of anything to make that determination isn’t the best science as required under the Information Quality Act.

In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) petitioned the EPA to “Stop declaring chemicals carcinogens based on rodent tests alone”. ACSH noted that the law permits EPA “to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance's carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.”

The petition argues that EPA ”distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines' use of "default options," its purported right -- based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health -- to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans. Erring on the "safe side" in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law. “

Finally after months of delays the EPA formally responded saying “that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and is now. If EPA policies aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on?

In 1950 the legal limit for DDT was seven parts per million. Why? Because they couldn’t test below that; so anything below seven parts per million was zero. As the years went by we have learned how to detect substances at parts per billion, then parts per trillion, then parts per quadrillion and parts per…well…even higher numbers that I can’t recite. At some point we will be able to detect everything in anything. But should that matter? No! At some point the molecular load will be so small that cells will not respond to it. Under Delaney that wouldn’t matter. It was later discovered, mostly through the efforts of Dr. Bruce Ames, that the number of naturally occurring carcinogens was shockingly high.

To really get the full impact of the folly of the government's statements let's take a look at a traditional Thanksgiving dinner menu which is filled with carcinogens.

I'm not sure what drives these people to demand these things, but it is clear that they either don't know that the cancer rates are dropping and that most carcinogens are naturally occurring, or too lazy to find out, or they are deliberately being dishonest dupes and pawns of the environmental movement. Either way, if this passed it would not have any impact on the nation's health or alter the amount of cancers that develop in people. The reality is that cancer 'epidemics' are self induced by our life style. In the early 1900's lung cancer was so rare that one doctor made sure that his interns saw one such patient because he said that this is so rare they may never see another again in their careers. Then smoking became popular.

If his concern really is all about public health then perhaps he should focus on that first. After he has fixed the way people live then perhaps he can expand his focus. In the meanwhile he might wish to read something on the subject. Allow me to recommend the American Council on Science and Health's book, American's War On "Carcinogens"!


###

Mary's Contraries: A Ho Chi Zinn Week

By Mary Grabar

This first appeared here. Please follow the link to get the whole picture she is painting. RK

The historians have spoken! And they have deemed The Jefferson Lies by David Barton and endorsed by Glenn Beck as the least credible history book in print. That was the finding in a poll on the History News Network. Among those criticizing Barton's book were two professors from Grove City College.

Coming in close (very close) behind, though, was Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. (But HNN's headline named only Barton.) Zinn earned the ire of 641 historians as opposed to the 650 who condemned Barton's book.

Yet, while Dissident Prof sees Howard Zinn's Marxist polemic showing up on high school and college syllabi regularly, she never sees Barton's book.

Mere babes are being introduced to Zinn too, through a version called The Young People's History of the United States. The book is doing quite well in terms of sales. Its publisher Seven Stories, according to a July 26 article in Publishers Weekly, has a "strong social justice and narrative component." Seven Stories founder Dan Simon was quoted in the article as stating, "'The few books we've done for young adults and children have been well-received. A Young People's History of the United States is our bestselling backlist title." Now the company is launching its first children's imprint, Triangle Square Editions, which will specialize in children's literature that tells "'personal stories of courage and commitment.'"

Hmm, wonder if Grandma is buying A Young People's History as a Christmas present? Or is a teacher ordering it from the Zinn Education Project?

But we suppose that after the kiddos are introduced to this creepy, conspiratorial Marxist tract (read my report about Zinn's kiddie propaganda) in middle school, they can then graduate to reading the adult version, especially if they are bright enough to be in AP history classes. Here in Georgia, in Gwinnett County, the book was assigned in Brookwood's AP U.S. History classes for summer reading.

Don Feder recently shared some of his remininscences of being Howard Zinn's undergraduate advisee at Boston University in his recent column that ranges over to the current political situation we find ourselves in this election season.

Zinn had celebrities extolling his scholarship on the "people" (who happened to be famous Marxist radicals or else just anonymous) in the movie Good Willing Hunting and then in a film called The People Speak! Dissident Prof has seen The People Speak! extolled to educators and "community groups." A People's History was the staple text in every Occupy Wall Street library that served those having the leisure time to camp out in urban public parks.

As Feder recounts, Professor Zinn did not care about the proletariat of Roxbury, for back in the late 60s he called for rioting there--from the safety of his cushy suburb of Newton.

Such "privileged pinkos" (as Mr. Feder calls them) like Ho Chi Zinn (to quote Mr. Feder again on the popular endearment for Zinn) love to see violent revolution--just as long as it doesn't affect their property values.

Alas, do the good citizens of Gwinnett County know what they are setting their children up for when they enroll them in AP U.S. History classes in what is deemed one of the best school districts in Georgia? The almost least credible history book in print by Ho Chi Zinn.

(The Wall Street Journal noted that Zinn's tract inspired the "most intense discussion"; the New York Times led off by stating that though the political direction of the country was unknown in terms of elections, conservatives were winning in the bad history category!)

Some of the leftists commenting in HNN admit that Zinn's book is inaccurate; yet they defend it as a "flawed but necessary corrective to the overly heroic stories that prevail in many classrooms" (to quote the Times' summary). Really? Which edition of history or social studies textbooks? Which college of education graduate? Of 1950? Presumably Zinn offers the history of the lowly common people, heretofore overlooked. That is not the case, for most of the "people" in the People's History are radicals well-known in Marxist circles. But should classrooms be teaching bad history as a social corrective? After all, two conservative professors from the Christian Grove City College criticize a book that falsely claims that Thomas Jefferson never wanted a separation between church and state.

###

What is a SLAPP Lawsuit?

______

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

A lawsuit called as SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit which is against public participation), is proposed to censor, silence and intimidate critics to pay legal defense cost, until they discard their opposition or criticism. The lawsuit known as SLAAP is one of the most dangerous and least known threats to free speech. It is used by the advocates of the free speech to describe merit less lawsuits whose intention was to silence the critics.

Normally, SLAPP targets citizens rather than media. SLAPP plaintiff does not intend to win that lawsuit always, but their goals are achieved if the defendant surrenders to intimidation, fear, simple exhaustion, mounting legal costs and abandons the criticism. It may intimidate from the debate participation. SLAPP is often accompanied by legal threat. The drawback that plaintiff has is that they are not presented to the court admitting that their intent is just to censor. Any statute that applies to express any speech or writing made in the connection of the issue or a legislative review by the judicial or executive proceeding. This may also imply for a public speech or a forum on any issue for the public interest......(there's more....go here)

Zone of Reality: Mann Versus Ball

By Rich Kozlovich

On Sunday I posted "I Will Huff and Puff and Blow Your House Down" discussing these lawsuits by Mann against Ball and Steyn. I was watching this from the beginning but nothing happened for quite a while. It is surely now coming to a head. John O'Sullivan has posted some worthwhile information succinctly outlining the issues and what appears to me to be an eventual outcome that can only be devastating to the hucksters of global warming, the socalled 96% of scientists who concur with their views, the governments of the world who have jumped on this bandwagon and the IPCC....Oh....and Mann too!

For those who have been reading Paradigms and Demographics you will see the “Tiger by the Tail” scenario I described...only its worse than I described. Mann has placed himself in a situation where he must provide evidence that will absolutely clear him of all charges of fraud, or he will provide information that will send him plummeting into the abyss, along with his whole gang.

I wondered why I kept seeing that term “dirty laundry” in quotations when his hidden data was being referred to. Now I know; that was the term he used himself. I do find that interesting. But I guess he would know best.

I also wasn’t aware of Canada’s rules regarding libel. As I said, it’s even worse than I described if you are the bad guy. Ball didn’t choose the ‘fair comment’ defense. Ball has decided his defense will be the truth. In Canada this is called:

“The Truth Defense to Libel”, which “places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.”

Please enjoy O'Sullivan's latest commentary. I certainly did!

New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again
By John O'Sullivan

Media war of words erupts in anticipation of another global warming courtroom battle. We take time to see how latest events connected to Climategate’s controversial scientist Michael Mann stack up alongside Mann’s legal shoot out versus Dr. Tim Ball.

Last week Pennsylvania State University (PSU) popped back up on the notoriety radar thanks to lingering fallout over their jailed child sex felon, football coach Jerry Sandusky. PSU’s other alleged bad boy, climatologist Michael Mann, came out with all legal guns blazing after popular right-wing writer, Mark Steyn and the National Review wrote of the parallels in the “whitewashes” PSU investigations performed separately on Sandusky and Mann. The recent and hard-hitting Freeh Report is damning of PSU’s hierarchy.

With talk of more lawsuits flying, observers are now wondering how an earlier Michael Mann face off with Tim Ball is shaping up one year on. Readers may recall that Ball’s whimsy that Mann belongs in “the State Pen., not Penn. State” triggered the first of what now may become a series of desperate SLAAP lawsuits..... Today – despite being duly served with legal notices – Steyn and the National Review are taking a leaf from Ball’s book and not caving over their “Football and Hockey” article. Steyn has a reputation for being a tough enforcer capable of lighting the lamp in any SLAAP face off. So is Mann skating on thin ice with more time wasting dangles and dekes?

Explaining Science

By Rich Kozlovich

Over the last few years we have kept hearing how 'consensus' is science. Baloney! The reality of the green movement and their claims about almost everything is now and has been consistently wrong since Rachel Carson spewed out her unscientific dogma in 'Silent Spring'.

I have been saying for years that 'everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality'. That is science!



###

Logical Fallacy of the Week, Week 36: Fallacy of False Attribution

______

 

Fallacy of False attribution

False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.  This occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. A contextomy is a type of false attribution. A more deceptive and difficult to detect version of a false attribution is where a fraudulent advocate goes so far as to fabricate a source, such as creating a fake website, in order to support a claim. For example, the “Levitt Institute” was a fake organisation created in 2009 solely for the purposes of (successfully) fooling the Australian media into reporting that Sydney was Australia’s most naive city.....

(Please follow the link for more information. As you follow the arguments presented by the green movement you will find that they are guilty of every logical fallacy on record.  But this one is used extensively as is next week's fallacy.  So when you couple logical fallacies with outright lies they seemingly present unassailable arguments.  That is why it is important to know your material and recognize a logical fallacy when you see one.   RK)

###

Observations From the Back Row

______

Americans Produce More Regulatory Compliance Paperwork than Manufactured Goods
Yes ma'am. You heard that 'torectly as they say (sometimes) in the South. Americans spent enough time and effort complying with government regulations to total $1.8 trillion of our roughly $15 trillion national GDP. (Source: Small Business Administration). During the same year, the entire American manufacturing industry made $1.7 trillion worth of: airplanes, cars, furniture, clothes, upholstery, widgets, gadgets, wingnuts and Sidewinder missiles. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry Economic Accounts (2009) This is why this current 'debate' (mid-slinging) by the Obama Administration over 'out-sourcing' and 'Bain Capital' is so maddening, mind-numbing and quite honestly, 'dishonest'. If you have ever wondered why so many US corporations have fled to set up shop overseas over these past 30 years, look no further than this astounding fact:

$1.8 trillion in regulatory costs. The entire $1.7 trillion in total manufactured goods produced in America today.

The Desire to Return to the Box
Prometheus was a sneaky Titan. He created man despite Zeus warning him not to. Then he brought men fire. In addition to punishing Prometheus, Zeus decided to get even.  He had Hephaestus mold a woman from clay and the gods breathed life into her filling her with all the finest attributes of the god’s beauty, creativity, kindness, and also curiosity.  Zeus then arranged a marriage between the woman and Prometheus’s brother, Epimetheus. Prometheus had warned his brother not to accept gifts from Zeus, but the brother did so anyway. He and his wife, Pandora, were given a box with a very clear instruction on it to never open it.

One day, Pandora, overcome by her god’s given curiosity, opened the box. Pestilence, plague, disease, and sin poured forth from the box into the world. Last out of the box came hope.  Some will take issue with comparing guns to Pandora’s box, but in the discussion of gun control, Pandora’s box is the appropriate analogy. Try as we might, we will never, ever put guns back into Pandora’s box.  Gun control is a fool’s errand.

Obama Campaign Official Sen. Louise Lucas: Romney Campaigning on Racism
Disagreement continues to be defined as racism by the Democrat party. Speaking on the John Fredericks Morning Show, State Sen. Louise Lucas, part of President Obama’s “Truth Team” and an official member of the campaign, accused Mitt Romney of gearing his campaign in Virginia to “fringe racists” which, one can only assume, is anyone that opposes President Obama.

 Bloomberg: A Little Anarchy Might Help Convince People to Give Up Their Guns
The latest evidence that New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg’s brain is melting into a puddle of hot goo came courtesy of a Monday night appearance on Piers Morgan’s CNN “show” .This time, the pint-sized billionaire with a taste for cradle-to-the-grave control over the proletariat suggested that police officers across this country stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike until the people, in exchange for order, safety, and security, willingly give up their right to bear arms.

We’ve Defeated Fred Upton!
Well, not exactly. Fred Upton has defeated Fred Upton.  As the primary season progresses, we’ve see this pattern repeat itself on numerous occasions. There’s an old bull Republican who has been pushing for big government and anti-free-market policies for years. Then, as soon as his primary opponent begins to sow the seeds of disquiet in his district, the old bull lurches to the right, introduces conservative legislation, and attacks his conservative challenger as a liberal.

Republican Supporters of a Democrat Senate
In recent years, GOP establishment figures have accused the Tea Party of thwarting a Republican majority in the Senate by nominating conservatives whom they believe are unelectable. One would expect them do elicit a commensurate degree of outrage from the following story reported by The Hill.

Putting Students First
One of the things that we should take from the epic battle in Wisconsin as well as the fundamental changes that are taking place in New Jersey, is that real education reform is no longer a “third rail” political issue. Organizations, governors and activists are taking the issue of education head-on and even the National Education Association (NEA) is learning that their time as the dictators of education are over.

News versus propaganda
By Thomas Sowell
Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws. Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.

o NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting.

o Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado.

Why GOP leaders slur Bachmann, defend Obama

By Alan Keyes

 

During the GOP’s blatantly rigged 2012 primary season, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., distinguished herself as a sincere spokeswoman for the conservative grass-roots constituency the nomination of Mitt Romney will emphatically betray. Just recently she joined with several of her colleagues courageously to demand an investigation into evidence the Obama faction has placed people associated with organizations that promote Islamic jihad and Shariah law into high-level positions in the U.S. government, from which they may be exerting inordinate influence on America’s foreign and national-security policy. Now key members of the elitist faction’s leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties have embarked upon a scurrilous campaign of personal destruction aimed at discrediting Bachmann’s demand. Their campaign makes use of ad hominem attacks that accuse her of anti-Muslim bigotry and falsely suggest that her apprehension has no factual basis. Yet the ad hominem assault appears to have been launched precisely because Rep. Bachmann capably established the solid basis for her concerns. In a letter to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., she rebutted his scurrilously false characterizations of her actions with a meticulously footnoted response amply documenting the facts that justify her security concerns.

###

Ethanol and Corn: The Power of a Really Bad Idea

By Alan Caruba

This first appeared here!

It took some eighty years for Communism to fail in the former Soviet Union. Along the way, millions were sent to gulags and millions more died from starvation and World War Two added to the death tolls. Spreading Communism like a religion, it had similar results in China and everywhere it has been adopted.

It takes a long time to rid the world of a really bad idea and, in the latter part of the last century, environmentalism sprung up like a weed to overwhelm the common sense of people with its mix of lies and hatred for humanity.

What does this have to do with the price of corn? A lot.

Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), an ethanol mandate exists that requires refiners to blend this moonshine with gasoline for the alleged purpose of reducing the emissions that driving a car produces. We are told it contributes to cleaner air and the effects of global warming—which is not occurring.

What it actually does is ruin your car’s engine because it is highly corrosive and it reduces the mileage you would get if it was not part of the gasoline blend. It also ensures that the growers of corn have a government mandated requirement that it be purchased. It is a farm lobby bonanza.

As Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out about the RFS, “No matter how much of the U.S. corn crop is ruined by drought, no matter how high corn prices et, no matter how many people in developing countries are imperiled, the RFS requires that billions of bushels of corn be used to fuel cars rather than feed livestock and people. This is crazy.”

What most people, being city folk, don’t realize is how great a role corn plays in the nation’s economy, its export generates, and the astonishing list of uses to which it is put other than as a vital food for livestock—beef, pork and poultry—and consumed in hundreds of ways by people.

Corn is used in bakery products, baby foods, brewed beverages (bourbon, beer, ale), carbonated beverages, cheese spreads and foods, cereals, condiments, chewing gun, prepared mixes (pancakes, waffle, biscuit, cake flour, puddings), gravies and sauces, canned soups, coffee “creamers”, frosting and icings, in instant coffee, marshmallows, sweetened ice tea, most snack foods….I could go on, but the list is long, very long.

The Wall Street Journal, on July 19, reported that corn and soybean prices leapt to records on rising fears that the searing Midwest drought is further eroding the size of the coming harvests for two of America’s most important crops…The drought now covers more than half of the continental U.S. and covers a wider stretch of the country than in any drought since 1956, according to the U.S. government.”

And, even so, the Journal reported that “U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the situation wasn’t bad enough to warrant a reduction in government mandates for how much ethanol—typically made from corn—is blended into gasoline.” As for as Vilsack is concerned the RFS mandate must be enforced.

Marlo Lewis asks “Why as a matter of law should ethanol producers get first dibs on the U.S. corn crop?”

“What should their interest legally trump that of every other industry and consumer affected by corn prices?”

“Why should they have a legal privilege to jump to the front of the line ahead of meat, poultry, and dairy producers, or those who export grain to hunger-stricken countries?”

If we got rid of the ethanol mandate tomorrow our cars would last longer and drive farther. Since they are on our roads and streets anyway, does anyone really believe that air quality would be significant affected?

So ethanol, like communism and environmentalism, is yet one more very bad idea that is backed by the power of government mandates that benefit its growers, but does little else of any value for consumers.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

If you have been thinking of helping support Warning Signs, your donation will be especially helpful. Donate Here! Thank you!

###

Watching the Greens Kill Australia

By Alan Caruba

This first appeared here.

Fortunately for America, President Obama’s effort to impose a cap-and-trade law on carbon dioxide emission failed in a Democrat controlled Congress that saw how disastrous its impact would have been in a time of economic distress.

It would have imposed higher costs on everything involving the use of energy and would have done so on the basis of the all the lies about global warming, greenhouse gases, and Obama’s anti-energy policies. Using the Environmental Protection Agency, he has been bludgeoning the coal industry and, via the Department of the Interior, thwarting the exploration and extraction of oil on all of the vast land holdings of the federal government.

As I have often noted, there hasn’t been any planetary warming since 1998 when Earth began a normal cycle of cooling and carbon dioxide plays no role whatever in either warming or cooling. It is a mere 0.038 percent of the atmosphere.

For several years now I have been watching the destruction of the Australian economy by its elected leaders. David Archibold, a climate scientist and energy analyst based in Perth is a visiting fellow of the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. where he teaches a course in strategic energy policy. On July 1, he gave a speech at an anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney.

“There is no doubt that we are ruled by evil men and evil women who are fully aware of the damage they are doing to our economy, and to the warp and weft of our society, and who seem to be in a manic rush to do as much damage as possible in the time left to them,” Archibold told those attending the rally. Sadly, they already knew the truth of this.

An Australia friend of mine recently wrote to say “the Australian carbon dioxide tax—or as our lying government calls it ‘price on carbon’—came into effect on July 1, 2012. Already our electricity prices have risen by up to 20%, refrigerant gas gone up 300%. Landfill and tip fees have increased by 30%, food is up. The tax has been imposed on EVERY item we buy in some form or other”, adding that “I wouldn’t be surprised if you get a similar tax if Obama wins in November. We are slowly destroying our economy.”

A word about refrigerant gases; these are required for your home and car air conditioning, your refrigerator, and for a stand alone freezer. Most food items, liquid or solid—particularly meats, poultry and fish—require refrigerated transport. The Australian carbon tax adds thousands of dollars to these costs of operation and affects everyone.

The Greens, whether as part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or as groups in various nations, have done everything they can to thwart energy use, to replace oil, coal and natural gas with the useless, costly “renewable energies” of wind, solar, and biofuels. Humans, they insist, are destroying the Earth, but it is the Greens who are destroy Australia these days.

Australia is a case history of what happens when Greens and those in power join hands to use the instrument of government to destroy a successful nation. As Sam Fielding recently reported in an article on AmericanThinker.com, Australia went from a thriving economy under former Prime Minister John Howard who served from 1996 to 2007, only to elect Kevin Rudd’s left-wing Labor Party in 2007. By 2009 “a six year run of budget surpluses gave way to the largest deficits in modern (Australian) politics. His deputy was Julia Gillard who challenged him and won election, promised that “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

If this reminds you of all the promises President Obama made prior to taking office and plunging the U.S. into $17 trillion of debt, it is exactly the kind of duplicity that has ruined Australia when Gillard engineered the controversial tax.

Obama visited Australia in November 2011 and expressed support for the carbon tax saying, “I think that’s good for the world…I actually think, over the long term, it’s good for our economics as well, because it is my strong belief that industries, utilities, individual consumers—we’re all going to have to adapt how we use energy and how we think about carbon.”

As is the case of the IPCC, many of Australia’s scientists were corrupted. Archibold said, “As a scientist, what saddens me is that most of our scientific institutions have failed in their duty to serve and protect the Australian people” referring to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, government bureaus, and the universities—“these have all failed us and sold their souls for a handful of silver.”

“The notion of global warming,” said Archibold, “was concocted to provide a cloak of scientific respectability for a massive socialist redistribution of wealth.” If that sounds like what is happening in America today, you’re right.

My Australian friend also took note of a mining tax that has been imposed, not unlike Obama’s attacks on the U.S. mining industry. America sits atop enough coal to provide electricity for hundreds of years to come, but it is being systematically destroyed. “Australia is in a world of hurt and all so unnecessary. See what socialist, radical, green, lefty governments bring us?”

Yes, look at Australia and see what lies ahead if Obama is given four more years to complete his destruction of America.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

If you have been thinking of helping support Warning Signs, your donation will be especially helpful. Donate Here! Thank you!



###

Media Corruption

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags:

Everything we read in the newspapers and see on the news is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, although they have been guilty of that, but mostly lies of omission. What is even more disturbing is when they deliberately alter the events to give their lies solid foundations that appear as facts. I know the media are largely immune to libel laws compared to the rest of society, but you would think that they would at least make a stab at writing history correctly. I have concluded that they aren't very bright, very brave or very honest. Why? Two reasons! First they simply aren't....and secondly, they are hired by people who also aren't any better going back to the days of Hearst and Pulitzer, both of whom were contemptible in many ways. The foundation for newspaper corruption goes back to the founding of the nation. Hearst and Pulitzer made yellow journalism a science. The interesting thing is that due to the internet the media is probably better than ever in American history.

That's really frightening!

Thomas Sowell wrote an article recently, News versus propaganda, wherein he says:

"Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws. Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda. NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado."

This has been the pattern forever. Newspapers, just like politicians, lie....constantly. And they do so because they are corrupt, and largely immune in their corruption. If you were to go back to the presidential campaign between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams and read the various newspaper articles from both sides you would be aghast:

 "By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers."

Although the charges against Jackson were largly true, and the charges against Adams were largly false, Adams lost. However, Jackson, who is still considered a great American hero, revelled in the mud slinging, the sleazier the better, whereas Adams was repelled by it. And the outright partisanship of the newspapers was amazing, even compared with the valueless claptrap spewing out of newsrooms today.

This is what we must take away from all of this. Everyone who writes articles leave things out. Sometimes it’s because their simply isn’t room. Sometimes it’s not part of the theme you are working with, and an article can’t be a book. However, sometimes it’s because they don’t want the correct information clouding the conclusion they are driving you to with the narrative they are painting for you. How do we overcome that? We must read both sides to see what the other side is leaving out and why. We must read books because a much broader picture can be painted. We must read history because the pathways of the past are the stepping stones to the future.  The pathways of the past are solid and immutable foundations giving us the confidence to step lightly into the future remembering that these stepping stone can't be a permanent part of the pathway until we pass them. Finally; we must keep this in the forefront of our minds.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.

###

Steve Milloy: His Green Jobs Picks

______

Green War-Mongers Playing With Fire

German solar firms are preparing anti-dumping litigation against China in an effort to curb cheap panel imports often backed by state subsidies.

Green Jobs Gone Bust

Obama’s green investments drown in red ink.

Seton Motley: Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car

The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama – allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

Robert Bryce: Renewable Energy’s Incurable Scale Problem

It’s summer. It’s hot. And once again, we are hearing from the usual suspects that we must change our entire way of living. Repent, they say. Carbon dioxide emissions are killing Mother Earth. Give up hydrocarbons and embrace renewable energy.

Doing so, we’re assured, will result in a gentler climate and myriad other benefits, including scads of “green” jobs. Sounds easy, no?

Lisa Linowes: Wind Energy Jobs: Mysterious Numbers from AWEA (75,000 claim bogus)

 “AWEA’s job figures, dating back to at least 2009, may be nothing more than figures pulled from thin air.”

Green Jobs Count: Fewer Than Before, Sillier Than Ever

Back in March, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a study showing our economy had 3.1 million green jobs. Recently, it issued another green jobs study with a headlining number of 854,700 green jobs. Don’t worry—the economy did not lose 2 million green jobs in three months. There were not 3.1 million green jobs to begin with. And there are not 854,700 green jobs now.

Global warming is not just a scientific issue, but a class issue

And we all thought it was about “The Science”. This article from the International Marxist Tendency, gives the low-down on how Marxists see “Global Warming”.  Strangely, the sentiments are not dissimilar to those coming from the UN, EPA head Lisa P Jackson and Socialist International.

Continue reading →

Scathing “Green Jobs” Report

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations recently released a scathing memo on Section 1603 of the Obama stimulus plan.

IBD: Obama’s Green-Jobs Fraud Exposed

For a $9 billion investment, the administration created just over 900 new, permanent jobs. We could’ve had 20,000 jobs building a pipeline with not a dollar of taxpayer money being wasted.

Jen Alic: Energy Independence Equals Jobs across the Environmental Divide

With jobs set to be a key vote-winning point in US November presidential elections, the debate is being framed along the polarized lines of whether renewable energy or a revival of gas and oil production at home will create more jobs. The truth is that both are engines for economic growth and job creation and they are working in tandem to increase America’s energy independence.

Scientific Integrity is an Oxymoron

 

US Official: ‘Activate Your Science’

By Donna Laframboise

A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.

 

A few weeks ago an official based in Washington, DC touched down in Australia – 16,000 kilometers distant. She then traveled another 2,400 kilometers north to an out-of-the-way city named Cairns. With the Great Barrier Reef as a backdrop, she proceeded to deliver one of the scariest speeches ever.  The official’s name is Jane Lubchenco. As the Under Secretary of Commerce for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this woman heads a monstrous organization that spends $4 billion worth of taxpayers’ money each year. In other circumstances, I might be inspired by Lubchenco. She has a high-powered position in the reportedly excessively macho Obama administration. Moreover, her paternal grandfather (like my maternal grandparents) emigrated to North America from the Ukraine.

Instead, I’m appalled by the influence this woman now wields over a field I once respected and admired – science…..In Lubchenco’s universe there is apparently no danger of scientists going overboard, of unconsciously biasing their research. She seems to think that earning a scientific degree somehow transforms individuals into infallible beings who will never fall victim to self-delusion, whose judgment will always be impeccable.

 

The Main Stream Media: Bought and Paid For!

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags:

Does "bought and paid for" sound a bit too condemnatory?  They may not have received money, but they did receive access.  That is their payment.  Since this was their compensation for their corruption....... that constitutes being bought and paid for.  

Yesterday I posted this article; We Need to Get This: The Media Lies....Constantly!  I stated that "The media has had its way for so many years that they have begun to believe their own lies and distortions. Yet their proven “offenses include lying and fabricating, doctoring photos, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falling for hoaxes, and overt bias.”  It is absolutely true!

Please follow the link in the below article to get the full impact of what is actually going on.  It should have been obvious to the most casual observer, but apparently even being hit with a brick won't dent some heads. 

Proof! Establishment media controlled
By  Joseph Farah

There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed. The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught. “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”………All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.

It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.

###

I Will Huff and Puff and Blow Your House Down

_____

Breaking: Climate Scientist Michael Mann Lawyers Up after Penn State Child Sex Link
John O'Sullivan

Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University today (July 21, 2012) announced his intention to pursue legal action against The National Review Online (NRO) and popular right-wing writer, Mark Steyn over their article `Football and Hockey.'

In the wake of Louis Freeh's report on Penn State's complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley's other scandal: "I'm referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it's time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we've also learned about his and others' hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."……Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to "investigate" Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

On his Facebook page an irate Mann proclaims, "I have formally demanded a retraction of, and apology for, this defamatory piece about me by National Review. I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights." Mann's attorney, John B Williams of Cozen & O'Connor (Washington D.C.) asserts on the first page of his "take down" notice that NRO "know" that there is "no evidence of any academic fraud" by Mann. Page Two of the notice lists those whitewash official investigations that cleared Mann. However, Williams appears unaware that the official investigations did not examine Mann's still hidden "dirty laundry" - his metadata - nor did they address other adverse evidence or interview witnesses against Mann…….

[In his Dr. Ball lawsuit] Mann is doing without the expensive Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie who Mann has been using to pursue a separate libel claim against popular Canadian climate scientist, Dr. Tim Ball. That case isn't going well for Mann because he appears to be stalling about complying with a court motion to hand over his hidden "dirty laundry" metadata to courtroom scrutiny. The British Columbia Supreme Court, where the case is currently being heard, has the right to order Mann to reveal all such withheld data. If Mann persists in failing to comply the court may find him in contempt and dismiss his case and award substantial damages in favor of Ball.

My Take – I have been following the old lawsuit from the beginning and I wondered why I hadn’t seen anything lately. Now I know….he hasn’t turned over the required documents. When the first lawsuit was started I thought…. can he be serious? We have all the evidence from McIntyre and McKitrick that showed the Hockey Stick Graph to be fraudulent and why. Was it done deliberately? It is hard to explain how it could have been an accident. So I wondered if he understood that when you sue someone everything comes out, including all the e-mails he has been hiding from Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli with the help of the University of Virginia, claiming this is an attempt to infringe on scientific freedom.

One has to wonder if his scientific understanding and his legal understanding are on par. Now let’s assume that he doesn’t turn over the documents and is found in contempt, the judgment goes to Dr. Bell. What then? He will have a large financial settlement in his lap. Who will pay for it? The other thing I wonder about is the “I have a tiger by the tail” scenario. Once you start an official lawsuit you just can’t say….Ok…I was just kidding…I didn’t mean any of it...let's all just go home and forget about it! No, you are now in a position to be cross sued. Then you will still have to turn all the records over. And if he doesn’t then turn them over and the courts find in favor of Bell, or Steyn as the case may be, the amount of damages may be even higher than he would have to pay in the initial suit.

This is so interesting to watch. I have been on the right side of this from the very beginning and I love seeing all of the facts being forced into the light of day. Which I might add should have been done automatically as part of an honest peer review. Peer review, as flawed as it has become in recent years, is still the primary factor in determining what is science and what isn't. None of their work was peer reviewed by anyone that wasn't part and parcel of the program because they stated that after all their years of work they didn't want anyone to tear their work apart. That isn't peer review.

The job of peer reviewers is to find fault and tear their work apart. They know that, and didn't want to face it.

The Bitterness of Leftism

By Rich Kozlovich

David Horowitz recently wrote an article about a man named Alex Cockburn who recently died of cancer and is described by Horowitz as dying as a ‘spiteful and bitter man’ who was “anti-American and an anti-Semite and a cheerleader for “Islamo-fascists of Hizbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood bent on destroying us.” He went on to say he “devoted his life” to “the vile ideologies of the 1930s and 1960s”. A lifetime of devotion to a movement promoted by Karl Marx with its foundation in the horrors of the French Revolution, which is directly responsible for the deliberate murder of untold millions….. “in peacetime”.

A movement that over the last 100 years caused billions to be turned into miserable suffering slaves of leftist governments. He went on to say regarding his spiteful bitterness that, “This was the predictable fruit of a life spent badly in recrimination and anger.”

Dennis Prager is noted for stating that haters can’t be happy and happy people can’t be haters. Although the left is unendingly driving studies to prove that conservatism is a form of insanity; it is abundantly clear to me that the left must be where the insanity is rich. They all seem to suffer from a form of collective insanity. How else can anyone explain their affinity with such unending hatred for so many? That is completely and uncompromisingly strange. How can that then be considered anything except insanity?

They hate the Jews, Christians and religion as a whole. They hate the police, the military, the government, the banks, Americans and America, business people, conservatives, everything that is stable and anyone else who disagrees with them. And as this article shows they will happily turn and rend one of their own for daring to step outside of leftist "borg-like" herd thinking. They will unendingly criticize the right for the smallest infraction of perfection, and yet they love socialist states and the Islamo-fascists who have imposed the most abusive tyrannies the modern world has known!  Especially since the historical record is replete with all of the abject and unbelievable failures of the very cause they promote. How is that sane?

That shouldn’t surprise anyone since herd thinking is one of the requirements of ‘the collective’, going back to the French Revolution. Why do they attack their own when they step out of line? Ask why did the French Revolutionists have to murder the king and his family, along with all the other 'noble' families? There is a reason why that part of the revolution is called 'The Terror"! Ask why did the Russian Communists have to murder the Czar and his family? Why did all of these monsters deliberately murder tens millions of innocent citizens of their own nations? Can any other explanation other than insanity explain such actions?

On the right you will see abundant disagreement without brutal recrimination, unless of course your name is John McCain….but who ever said he was on the right…or very bright? Not to mention the fact that being a war hero doesn’t give you a pass on the rest of life.

Since the leftists have spewed out hate all of their lives, one has to wonder; what must that do to their health? It is known that our mental attitudes impact our physical health. When we harbor strong negative feelings, such as anger or hate, chemicals are released into the body which is destructive to the body. When we harbor strong positive feelings of love, kindness and happiness the body releases other chemicals that are beneficial promoters of good health. I think that we can assume that the bitterness and unhappiness these people feel is deserved, and they have brought it on themselves?

The thing I wonder about with these people is this. As atheists, what goes on in their heads as they lay there painfully dying? My guess is that the only regret they have is that they can’t have those they have hated for all these years right there beside them, suffering too; miserable to the end. And they won’t even be missed by the "borg-like" leftists of their collective since there is always some other foolish, hateful leftist salivating to take his place. And those who finally have the opportunity to take his place will be happy he’s dead.

After all….they’re leftists too.

I would like to recommend reading Patrice Lewis's article,'Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated', which was part of the inspiration for this article.