Paul Driesen’s articles and books are always worth checking out. Paul is an excellent writer and researcher. I would encourage readers to check out the links to his work at the bottom of this article. This article is reprinted here, with Paul’s permission. — Jason
Pope Francis’ prescriptions will perpetuate poverty, disease, premature death in Third World
By: Paul Driessen
The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.
“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”
The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).
All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.
One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]
However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.
Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]
Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.
Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.
Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.
Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.
We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.
As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years. None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.
Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.
Hundreds of millions get horribly sick and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.
Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance, because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.
Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?
We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.
No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years, because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.
The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.
But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.
Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.
Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.
It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
The Tax Foundation just published an eye-opening map, showing the cost of gas taxes (cents/gallon) in each state. It’s instructive to also note that the rates listed on the map do not include the 18.4 cents/gallon federal excise tax.
Remember that we regularly hear about the “excessive” profits made by oil companies on their product. But compare their profits of about 8 cents / gallon, plus the gas station owner’s profit of about 1 cent / gallon to the various levels of government that are making as much as 70 cents / gallon and then ask yourself, “who is making windfall profits on gasoline?”
Should a robber break into my house, and with a dagger at my throat make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title, by his sword, has an unjust conqueror, who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown, or some petty villain. The title of the offender, and the number of his followers, make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones, to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession, which should punish offenders.
— John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government 
This is a frightening 8 minute long expose on this Administration’s deliberate negligence and gross legal malfeasance in the area of immigration enforcement.
To forestall complaints and charges that I am anti-immigrant, this post is not an attack on immigration in any way. My wife is a LEGAL immigrant to this great nation. Furthermore, I support the broadening and radical simplification of the immigration system to allow more people to enter this country.
What this post and Sen. Cruz’s video are opposing is the wanton disregard of basic immigration laws and the willing role this (and previous) administrations have played in turning a blind eye to the need for controlling this nation’s borders.
Ghoulish doesn’t even begin to cover the comfortable, joking manner that Mary Gatter employs as she casually discusses selling the body parts (brain, liver, thymus) of aborted babies. Apart from the fact that trafficking in human remains is a federal crime, the complete lack of humanity demonstrated by Ms. Gatter as she chuckles about purchasing a Lamborghini from the proceeds of these sales should cause any reasonable person to shudder in revulsion.
Sick, evil, grotesque, inhumane, offensive and a host of other equally harsh words come quickly to mind. The fact that this group and its doctors are funded by our tax dollars only serves to make this crime against humanity more foul.
Josef Mengele would be proud of these women and their cohorts at PPFA.
Here is the video of the first PPFA Dr. (Deborah Nucatola) who was filmed bartering for the remains of aborted babies.
Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
– John Adams
More on the Harry Reid front.
Interesting comments from Dana Perino after another one of Harry Reid’s personal attacks.
The more you hear about Harry Reid, the more convinced you are that he is a truly base, degraded, all-round failure of a human being.
I had to do a double-take on this Washington Examiner story.
Harry Reid on conservatives’ mobster-beating theory: ‘They don’t like me as a person’
On CNBC’s “Speakeasy,” host John Harwood asked Reid about theories put forth by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart News that the injuries Reid sustained at the beginning of this year, including a blow to his right eye, are not, as he has said, the result of an accident involving elastic exercise equipment.
“The last few days, a bunch of people are saying, Reid, he didn’t have an exercise accident, he got beat up by the mob,” Harwood said.
“It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh, he’s the guy that got all this started,” Reid replied. “Why in the world would I come up with a story that I got hurt in my own bathroom with my wife standing there? How could anyone say anything like that? And I think a lot of people, as I read, they kind of don’t like me as a person and I think that’s unfortunate.”
“It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh”??? “They don’t like me as a person”???
If anyone else had major media celebrity like Rush Limbaugh openly commenting on how they had been injured in a recent “accident,” I would at least feel a pang of remorse for them. However, Harry Reid is the epitome of all that is wrong and inappropriate in politics today. Reid has lowered the bar in political discourse more than any currently-living politician or media figure.
In fact, he just recently gloated over the fact that his lies about Mitt Romney’s tax situation – from the floor of the Senate – had likely played a key role in keeping Romney from winning the Presidency.
As the video clearly shows, Reid actually sat in that CNN interview with Dana Bash and smirked as he justified his lies and personal attacks on Romney as well as his misrepresentations about the Koch brothers. His lies achieved the desired political end of helping keep Democrats in power, so … it’s all good.
“Well, they can call it whatever they like. Romney didn’t win, did he?”
The hypocrisy and self absorption are almost dripping off of the page. I am actually amazed that Reid can keep a straight face when he whines that people are questioning him on his “athletic accident” story and complaining about the fact that people don’t like him as a person. The man has spent the past several decades making himself completely untrustworthy, and completely unlikeable as an elected official or as a person. He has gotten away with shady business deals and allegations of corruption that would sewer any other politician’s career, escaped any serious political ramifications of referring to the President as being “light-skinned” with “no negro dialect,” he has repeatedly used the power of his office as the head of the Senate to shower his political adversaries with any and every sort of unwarranted personal attack and with an endless stream of lies and misrepresentation. He has lowered the level of conversation in the Senate to less than that of a grade school recess yard.
So how could anyone – especially Reid himself – be surprised that a lot of people “don’t like him as a person”? Apart from his mother, I’d be surprised if anyone really likes him as a person.
Bernard Goldberg’s latest article closes with a frightening thought. Short version is that it does not matter how calculating, untrustworthy, dishonest, entitled, manipulative, overbearing, etc., etc., etc. Hillary Clinton may be. The reality is that many of the larger states, like California, Illinois, and New York, will vote for a rock or a puddle of slime mold if it has a “D” beside it on the ballot.
But that’s moot at this point. So Hillary won’t be a pushover. Quite the contrary. That’s partly because of the Democrats’ best friend in presidential elections — the Electoral College.
Democrats almost always win California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. That gets them pretty close to victory right off the bat.
So the GOP candidate doesn’t start out with a strong hand. And if ideologically pure conservatives sit home as they have when John McCain and Mitt Romney ran, if they refuse to vote because the candidate Republican primary voters picked isn’t “conservative enough,” then it won’t just be hard for a Republican to win. It will pretty much be impossible.
So regardless of how little Hillary might have accomplished. Regardless of the fact that she is only where she is because she married (and clung) to Bill Clinton. Regardless of the fact that she has been a Washington insider for the past 30+ years. Regardless of the fact that the only thing she really appears to have going for her is the symbolism of being the first woman President, there is a very real possibility that block voting mentalities in certain states could still make her the next President.
After listening to the President’s National Prayer Breakfast speech where he lamely tried to find any way possible that he could point a finger of blame at Christianity instead of keeping his attention focused firmly on the islamist terrorists that make up Daesh (aka ISIS), I was struck by the notion that I had seen someone attempt to pull an equally lame stunt as a means of trying to remain relevant.
It took me a few minutes, but then I remembered back in 1977 a once promising TV show was running out of ideas and struggled to find a way to keep viewers interested. To keep the story moving along, the writers had one of the key characters accept a challenge from the “California Kid.” As a result, Aurthur Herbert threw on his leather jacket, strapped on the skis, and little Opie Cunningham fired up the ski boat. Little did they know they would ensure the end of their hit show soon after while also creating one of the Interwebz most enduring memes.
So I took a few minutes and whipped up a commemorative graphic for the President’s big speech.
By reaching back over 900 years into history to find something (anything!!!) with which he could tar the Christian faith (and conveniently ignoring the fact that the Crusades were undertaken as a defensive reaction against 400+ years of Muslim aggression across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe), our President latched on to that same tenuous grip on relevancy that the Fonz had as he entered the water and jumped the shark.
Thank you, Mr. President for confirming to one and all your complete lack of connection with the real world.
To steal a quote from your 2008 debate with Mitt Romney, “the 11th Century is now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
You don’t have to agree with what Charlie Hebdo published – I certainly didn’t – to stand up and LOUDLY shout that they protected everyone’s free speech rights against brutal, totalitarian Islamic terrorism and deserve to be remembered for their bravery.
The funny thing – if you can take anything funny or good from terrorism and murder – is that these islamist butchers and their supporters have made the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo into martyrs for the cause of freedom and have greatly increased the world’s interest in their work.
Sad to see so many in the media rushing to apologize for Charlie Hebdo and demanding that we censor ourselves and ‘live on our knees’ in submission to radical islamist terror.
Lest we forget – “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier (1967 – 2015), publisher, Charlie Hebdo.
This video speaks for itself and it speaks volumes about the mindset of people who attend and work at UC Berkeley.
The AEI post about relative tax burdens borne by Americans is (to say the very least) an eye-opener. Using CBO data, this post shows that the top quintile not only pays it’s “fair” share of federal taxes. People in the top quintile essentially pay the full share of American taxes.
Once federal taxes and transfers are taken into account, the top two quintiles bear the full burden of all federal taxes. That means that the bottom 60% of American earners receive more from the federal government than they pay in.
A final update note to the article also notes that the U.S. has the “most progressive tax system among all OECD countries.” So the notion that America is some wild west, laissez-faire, wilderness where the poor and indigent are left to care for themselves is shown to be a complete and total farce … a prevarication … an oversimplification … an equivocation … a flat out lie. The supposedly more progressive European nations make their poor pay a higher level of taxes and take less in taxes from the uber wealthy than does the American system.
The graph speaks volumes to the massive load of bravo sierra we have been fed by progressive thinkers for years on the issue of relative tax burdens. When we hear from politicians like President Obama saying that the “rich” don’t pay their “fair share,” more of us now have the information to stand up and say that they are not only paying their fair share, they are paying almost everyone else’s share as well.