Doc's Talk: COP:The Big 'Green' Picture

Saturday, September 05, 2009

COP:The Big 'Green' Picture

Tad Wintermeyer

The radical leftist green movement is inherently hypocritical at its core. The left implores America to live greener, more eco-friendly lives, while at the same time advocating policies and theories that directly contradict their own agenda. Conservatives seem to have a perpetual case of Laryngitis when it comes to countering this disconnect. I believe this is due in large measure to conservatives failing to identify the dispositive issue. Why is this relevant? In March, Van Jones was appointed to be the ‘green' czar by the Obama administration. Van Jones is slick, polished and able to nimbly weave his firebrand, take no prisoners style into a smooth onslaught that carries strong populist appeal. Van Jones's direct involvement in radical, anti-American organizations is not what interests me. I want to peel back the layers of the leftist mantra to uncover the roots of the radical leftist green movement. The answer will explain how a militant, anti-American and self-confessed communist can be transfigured into a self-described ‘green capitalist.'

In order to have an intelligent debate on environmental issues, it is essential to know each side's position-where the opposing views originate. Sun Tzu summed it up succinctly in an often misquoted phrase:

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

Consequently, the key to winning or losing any contest or debate depends on greater knowledge or informational disparity. It didn't take modern economists to figure out that "never will those who wage war tire of deception." Sun Tzu, The Art of War. In fact, deception is the oldest trick in the book.

What is the driving force behind the green movement? Power. And the left knows how to wield it, including Van Jones.

The environmental debate can arguably be distilled to one single question: What is the role of man on earth? While it may seem rather existential and simplistic to ask such a temporal question, the answer draws a clear line: Man is either a mere mutation from algal sludge or a created steward. Therefore, human origin must be weighed when considering the context of the debate.

One of the unintended (or intended) consequences of Darwin's theory is that it lowers man to the lowest common denominator. Darwinists are proud that they share 98% of their genetic makeup with a chimpanzee.1 Darwinists are adamant that man is not the master of his universe. Man is relegated to being no more than just part of nature.2 Some on the left have even gone as far as to state that man is no more than a complex disease or virus-a mere parasite.3 The radical left openly advocates drastic population control measures to reduce world population.4

In the next breath, these same intellectuals will argue that humans are inherently good. Yet, according to the Left, there is no right or wrong-no truth, no morality, only shades of primordial grey.5 Left to his own devices, man will continue to evolve into a higher, more utopian state.6 How does this position square with the violent millennia of recorded history, let alone the continuing violence in the world today?7 This position is logically irreconcilable. The mental acrobatics the left must leap through to reach this point are akin to complex regression analysis. The results are no better than the assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. The data can be stacked, just so, to lead to a predetermined conclusion. Al Gore's charts are no exception.

If human existence is no more than a chance collection of cells, how do we reconcile the following question? If global warming will raise sea levels, cause catastrophic climate change and massive population reductions, what is this to the earth? If humans are merely part of the system, didn't natural selection just work its perfect symmetry by removing them from it? On a grand scale, what is a few thousand years or several hundred million years?8 Once the scars left by man had healed, the earth could resume her concentric journey around the sun ad infinitum. Extinct life could simply re-evolve from a post-industrial sludge. Right?

Ultimately, this exposes an inescapable truth: human existence is valuable. The question then becomes, whose existence is valuable? Is that value a positive or negative integer? Darwinian logic's answer is those who are the fittest. How then do you reconcile the animal survival instinct with the parasite view? We can't. At the end of the day, right or left, both sides value life, albeit in gross disparity. More simply, conservatives value life intrinsically-the left, extrinsically.

The question of where we come from drives our sense of how we should care for this planet. From an intrinsic view point, human existence should be protected to improve the opportunity for individual quality of life. The extrinsic view holds that human existence should be subservient to perceived interests of the earth as a whole.9 What is the difference? Everything. It comes back to the earlier question of who gets to choose who survives.

Preposterous, right? "The left can't be in the business of choosing who lives and who dies!" Can they? The current administration has crystallized this fact. For example, placing arbitrary caps on carbon emissions merely shifts environmental impact from those who have to those who currently have not. The proposed healthcare bills arbitrarily take quality care from those who have and give to those who don't. The end result is the same. It is a systematic attack on the intrinsic value of human life.

Remember Sun Tzu? "Never will those who wage war tire of deception." The only way irrational society can accept this malevolent devaluation is to cloak it with layer upon layer of deception. "Let's be ‘green' so our grandchildren will have a green planet to enjoy." Isn't that the talking point de jure? It's fun to say. It's in to be green. All this hyperbole hides the base truth: The left seeks total dominion over every aspect of our lives. Because it can never be exposed for this, the left must cloak its true motives in populist slogans and feel-good catch phrases, all the while numbing the citizenry into mindless submission. Once achieved, the left will be able to carry out its designs with impunity. Out is survival of the fittest. In is survival of the powerful.

Intellectual dishonesty goes a long way. What a better way to conceal the ultimate goal then for Van Jones and the current administration to repackage their unmarketable agenda into a readily saleable populist pitch.10 The only way to fight back against this rising tide of disinformation spewing from government is to fight deception with truth. It is imperative that we humans act as stewards of this earth. This much is clear. However, conservatives have lost their voice and credibility on environmental issues. Could it be we have forgotten what really matters?

1 Karl-Henrik Robrt, The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution 3 (2008).

2 “I reject the idea that humans are superior to other life forms. . . Man is just an ape with an overly developed sense of superiority.” Paul Watson, director of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a founder of Greenpeace. See: Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac 204 (1970).

3 “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.” Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb 6 (1968).

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems has become appallingly evident…Unless nations agree to work together…the prospect for a decent life on our planet will be threatened…The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabilizing world population.” David Rockefeller, Chairman, The Rockefeller Group, Address to the 28th Annual United Nations Ambassador Dinner (September 14, 1994) as quoted in the Business Council for the United Nations Briefing; Vol. 8, Issue 2, Winter 1995, page 1.

4 “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Ted Turner, Interview, Audubon Magazine (1996).

“Reproductive freedom is a matter of social justice, not individual choice.” Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty 6 (1998).

“In the past few decades, tension has grown between feminist women's health activists who sought to expand women's reproductive rights and the population control advocates whose chief goal was to cut fertility levels as much as possible.” Lara M. Knudsen, Reproductive Rights in a Global Context 2 (2006).

5 Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (1965).

6 Kenneth L. Deutsch & Walter Soffer, The Crisis of Liberal Democracy: a Straussian Perspective 35 (1987).

7 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac 220 (1970).

8 Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life 93 (1992).

9 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac 214 (1970).

10 Van Jones, Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix America's Two Biggest Problems (2008).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_big_green_picture.html at September 05, 2009 - 09:05:16 AM EDT

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk