Environmentalism: A History of in 1874 and then shelved it. Sixty-five years later, in 1939, Dr.

Paul
Müller made it on his own and found that it was very effective at
Unintended Consequences killing some insects. He patented it in the United States, England
and Switzerland. He later won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on
Originally published June 17th, 2007.
DDT.

Environmentalism has been around for a long time. Theodore

The chemical was a God-send. Merck & Company produced 500
Roosevelt was the first president to emphasize conservationism.
gallons in 1943 and delivered it to Italy to squash the typhus
Since then, the environmental movement has gained a lot of
epidemic. It was being spread by lice. Also in 1943, the U.S. Army
followers, and a lot of power.
started issuing 10 percent DDT dust to its soldiers. This was to fight
head, body and crab lice.

And I have to wonder: How can such a large number of well

meaning citizens get something so wrong, so often?
In 1955, a “Global Malaria Eradication Campaign” was started by
Environmentalists keep plugging away at the American people,
the Eighth World Health Assembly. DDT was a major component of
telling them to stop using this or stop doing that, because in one way
this campaign. It was used to limit the mosquito population. By
or another, they are damaging the planet.
1967, DDT, used in conjunction with anti-malarial medication,
nearly eradicated malaria from all the developed countries where it

Looking back, you see a list of actions and trail of tragic, unintended was endemic.

consequences.

In 1970, the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research

Take DDT. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) was made for in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy

no reason. German chemist Othmar Zeidler put it together way back said:
 In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500
million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise
would have been inevitable.

Then entered the environmentalists.

Several claims were made against DDT. The book Silent Spring said
it cause liver cancer. Our Stolen Future said it caused breast cancer.
However, science said it didn’t. In 1985, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:

No correlation at the population level can be

demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the
incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT
has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns
and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at
previous exposure levels, within the statistical
limitations of the data.

And according to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical

Oncology, primates that were given 33,000 times the estimated
human exposure in 1969 and 1972 was : Wallpaper advertisement from a mid-1940s “Woman's Home
Companion.” Hotels in New York would love to have this today.
“inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of
Bedbugs have become an epidemic.
DDT in nonhuman primates.”
Environmentalists also said DDT thinned the egg shells of birds
exposed to the chemical. Again, science says different. Experiments
done with doses far higher than birds would experience in the wild
showed no conclusive evidence of thinned shells. Ironically, a 1969
study done by the Journal of Wildlife Management, showed that
“shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet…”
Environmentalists blamed the population decline of the bald eagle
on DDT also. Ignored was the fact that bald eagles were reportedly
close to extinction in 1921. They also ignored the over $100,00 in
bounties the state of Alaska paid for bald eagles. And finally, every
dead bald eagle found between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was reviewed
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. DDT was not found to
be the cause of death.
Actually, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists had captive
bald eagles they were feeding DDT. They fed them the chemical for
112 days. The results? “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the
environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.”
DDT was also blamed for the decline of other birds, but with similar
scientific findings. Why then was the chemical a target, and why was
it banned?
According to the October 5, 1969 issue of the Seattle Times,
The environmental movement used DDT as a means to
increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for
the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, “If the
environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level
of authority they have never had before.. In a sense,
much more is at stake than DDT.”
The Environmental Defense Fund was against the use of DDT. And
the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at
the time, William Ruckelshaus, was a member of the EDF.
Ruckelshaus, the man who finally banned DDT 1972, wrote letters
requesting donations for the EDF on his personal stationary.
But before being an advocate of prohibiting DDT, Ruckelshaus was
a fan. On August 31, 1970, Ruckelshaus was an assistant attorney
general. In a U.S. Court of Appeals, he said:
“DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use,
does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals,
and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT
 are unproven speculation.” But the egg shells there are in great shape.

Judge Edmund Sweeney was the EPA hearing examiner for lengthy,
comprehensive hearings on DDT from 1971-1972. He found that ***
“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a
mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the
At the same time they are organizing the eventual deaths of
regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on
100,000,000 people, these brainiacs hatched another great plan. It
freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
seems there was an excess of tires in the 50s and 60s. These piles of
tires were fire hazards and eye sores, but what are you going to do
Although he did not attend an hour of the seven months worth of with them all?
hearings, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus overruled Judge Sweeney
and put DDT out of action in 1972. Ruckelshaus aides said he did
Easy. You dump them in the ocean.
not even read the transcripts from the hearings. He refused to release
the evidence he used to justify his actions and told the USDA, when
they tried to get the materials through the Freedom of Information In the spring of 1972, hundreds of eager environmentalists climbed
Act, that they were “internal memos.” aboard hundreds of boats filled with tires and made their way to a
point off the coast of Florida. There, the Goodyear Blimps dropped a
golden tire into the ocean. It was the first of a million or more tires
The banning of DDT has had some terrible unintended
dumped there. That golden tire was a symbol of the glorious future
consequences. The median WHO estimate there are no 300 million
this artificial reef was suppose to secure. There would be no
to 500 million cases of malaria each year globally. That adds up to
recycling of tires. They would just be used to create habitats in the
close to 14 billion cases since DDT was banned in 1972. Out of
ocean for all our aquatic friends. According to a county report at the
those, nearly 100 million have died. In Africa, it is estimated that a
time, the tire reef would be “A potential grouper haven” But, there
child dies from malaria every thirty seconds.
were some unintended consequences.
Today, there is no artificial reef. Instead, there is 35 acres of ocean consumed and less dependance on foreign oil. Environmentalists
floor covered by radials. And they are killing the natural reefs. The claimed that this would improve air quality also.
tires roll around under water, subject to the natural movement of the
ocean. They roll into the reefs and damage them. Close to two
But, there were some unintended consequences.
million tires are now playing wrecking ball to the reefs. And the
government gets to pay for the clean-up. That translates to: you and I
get to pay for the clean up. To meet this requirement, manufacturers have to make cars that get
very high gas mileage. To get those averages, the cars have to be
small and light. According to a 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash
Coastal America, described in the Washington Post as “a partnership
data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety
of federal agencies, state and local governments and private groups”
Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
is trying to get military salvage teams to use tire retrieval as training.
about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have
It is expect to take three years and to cost $3 million to $5 million
survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This is
dollars. So plan on spending at least five years and $10 million to
from the creation of the standards in 1975 to 1999. I have not been
clean up this environmentalist environmental disaster.
able to find any newer studies. So, for every mile per gallon gained,
the standard has killed 7,700 people.
***

At least the air is cleaner, right? Not so much.

In 1975, the Congress felt they had to do something in response to
the 1973 oil embargo. So, the enacted the Corporate Average Fuel
According to a 1992 report from the National Research Council
Economy standards. The idea here is that car manufacturers have to
(NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy, “Fuel economy
have an an average fuel economy for all the cars it produces. A
improvements will not directly affect vehicle emissions.” The report
higher mile per gallon average would then lead to less gasoline
also suggests that because of the increased usage of plastics and
composites, we are looking at a new set of environmental concerns.
But at least we are less dependent of foreign oil.
***
Now the environmentalists are telling us that biofuels are the savior
of the planet. Ethanol is being subsidized by the government and
ethanol plants are springing up in the Midwest. But what happens
when we start using corn for gas instead of food? There are some
unintended consequences.
Mexico has seen the price of corn tortillas triple and quadruple in
some places, leading President Felipe Calderón to limit the price on
tortillas. While that may sound like no big deal, you need to
understand that Mexicans get 40% of their protein from tortillas. It is
a very important part of the Mexican diet. Amanda Gálvez, a
National Autonomous University of Mexico nutrition expert, claims
that because of tortillas, Mexican children have a very low incidence
of rickets, a bone disease caused by calcium deficiency that is
common in developing countries.
Food prices in America are up also. International Monetary Fund
says the price of food increased by 10% in 2006, mainly due to the
increased price of corn, wheat and soybeans. Corn is a major part of
the diet for cattle, chicken and hog farmers. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture says the supply of food produce in America will fall by
one billion pounds this year. The main reason for this is the high
price of feed. Generally, the food supply increases by 2% a year.
And ethanol isn’t really a good solution to begin with. According to
ABC News:
…emissions from ethanol-fueled cars are no cleaner for
the environment. According to atmospheric scientist
Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, a switch to
ethanol won’t do anything to address climate change and
ethanol fumes may actually be worse for public health
than the fumes from gas-powered vehicles.
Emissions from ethanol-fueled cars contain more of the
carcinogenic chemicals formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,
Jacobson said, and the vehicles will also boost
atmospheric levels of ozone, a major component of
smog, which will weaken people’s immune systems and
cause lung damage.
According to the same minds that brought us these horrifying
dangers to humanity and equally, if not more, horrifying solutions,
the greatest threat to humanity now is global warming. I cannot see
how we can trust the environmental movement with yet another
Chicken Little global issue, let alone turn the problem solving
responsibilities over to them. The earth may be warming, but so are
Neptune and Mars. The ice sheets are melting…and are revealing
silver mines and Viking farms. There is even doubt that CO2, the
villain of this story, is even the culprit. The Sun may have a hand in
this.

The truth is that the environmentalists are using the same tactics they
have always won with: smear anyone who disagrees with them and
get the politicians in their pockets. Pardon me if I doubt the current
call to tax carbon, join Kyoto or drive a Prius. I think I’ll take my
chances inhaling DDT.
International Welfare Hurts More than Helps
th
Originally published July 10 , 2007
Zimbabwe used to be called the breadbasket of Southern Africa.
Now, citizens say it has gone from “breadbasket to basket case.” At
one time, Zimbabwe exported its surplus food. Now food is so
scarce people resort to eating rats and mice.
This lack of food can be traced to a decision in 2000 by Zimbabwe
president Robert Mugabe. President Mugabe seized farm land
owned by white farmers and declared it would be redistributed to
black residents. It went to his sycophants instead. White farmers
were beaten and dozens killed because of the farmland redistribution
program. Thousands of farmers left the country completely. Most of
the land once used to feed the country sits empty. No one farms it
now. Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the United States, Machivenyika
Mapuranga says the redistribution program is “the greatest thing to
ever happen to Zimbabwe.” He says that field mice are a delicacy in
Zimbabwe.
At the end of last month, legislation was introduced that would
mandate a 51% stake in all publicly traded companies be transferred
to native Zimbabweans “disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on
the grounds of his or her race.” Recently, as many as 216 business
owners have been arrested for not complying with national price
controls, forcing business to sell their products at a loss. Gas stations
have stopped selling gas. It is only available on the black market, but
at five times the cost. It seems they plan to do the same thing to
business that they did with farming.
The United Nations estimates at least four million people in
Zimbabwe will need food aid within the next year. That is a third of
the total population. While the common man in Zimbabwe deals
with an 80% unemployment rate, a 10,000% inflation rate and a
yearly salary holding steady at Z$200,000 (around $818 US dollars),
the elite ruling class drive around in “shiny Mercedes and BMWs.”
It is Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” on the Dark Continent. And your
tax dollars help to finance it, and more.
In 2005, President Mugabe defied a European Union travel ban and
flew to Rome. An Italian official was quoted as saying “Of course
we don’t want him here, but we had no choice. International law
says he has the right to attend U.N. summits.” Mugabe was not only
going to attend, he was invited to speak. The United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization invited Mugabe to speak at a summit
on world hunger. He used the opportunity to blast President George
Bush and then Prime Minister Tony Blair. He referred to the duo as
“the two unholy men of our millennium” and as “international
terrorists.” Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the conference in
Rome noted that since 2002, just a little over three years, the U.S.
alone had donated almost $300 million in food aid to Zimbabwe, or
$100,000,000 a year in food aid to a country that used to feed itself.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) estimated
in 2003 that 15% of Zimbabwe’s GDP comes from international aid.
Mugabe takes that aid and uses it to reward his cronies and punish
his enemies. In October 2002, the International Crisis Group stated
the Mugabe regime was “blatantly using food as a political weapon
against opposition supporters.” We responded with $200 million
more in food aid. That is food you helped to buy and he used to
increase his power. Worse yet, in 2006, Tony Blair, George Bush and
other G8 leaders called for doubling aid to African nations.
The corruption is not exclusive to Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe.
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo claims that African nations
have lost $140 billion to looting in four decades.
In 1998, a World Bank statement titled “Assessing Aid: What Works,
What Doesn't, and Why” declared:
While the former Zaire’s Mobuto Sese Seko was
reportedly amassing one of the world’s largest personal
fortunes, decades of large-scale foreign assistance left
not a trace of progress. Zaire’s (now the Democratic
Republic of Congo) is just one of several examples
where a steady flow of aid ignored, if not encouraged,
incompetence, corruption, and misguided policies.
This was in a official report calling for an increase in funding The
U.S. is the largest donor to the World Bank, accounting for “about
16 percent of the World Bank’s total shares.” It has no control over
who the bank loans money to.
William Easterly, a former senior World Bank economist, noted in
his book on the failure of foreign aid, pointed out that the World
Bank and IMF gave 21 loans to the Kenyan government headed by
Daniel Arap Moi. This was when Moi was “running his nation's
economy into the ground and enriching cronies. His current
government even includes a cabinet minister who was accused by an
independent inquiry of having ordered the murder of another cabinet
minister who was a reformer.”
And do I need to mention the millions in aid America has given to believe he would approve of hundreds of millions to men like Robert
North Korea? Mugabe. Nor should we.

Foreign aid is nothing more than an international welfare program. It It is time to end foreign aid.
does not foster radical reforms or positive progress. Foreign aid
gives dictators the ability to reward cronies, punish enemies and
embezzle millions into nice, fat retirement accounts in Sweden. It
gives them the ability to continue repressing the country the foreign
aid is supposed help. It props up corrupt governments. And you and I
get to pick up the check.

Foreign aid also goes against the Constitution. There is no basis for
it in any way. Rep. Ron Paul nailed it when he said:

“Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious

abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an
unconstitutional burden on America’s working families,
but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence
foreign governments is counterproductive and actually
results in less goodwill toward the United States
overseas.”

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, refused to give

federal money to individual states in for roads and canals. I can’t
I Have a Right to Affordable Health Care…
and a Sig Sauer P229
Originally published on July 25th, 2007. This was my one and
only use of footnotes. Complete waste of time. Links are
easier and more useful.
“I…believe that every American has the right to
affordable health care. I believe that the millions of
Americans who can’t take their children to a doctor
when they get sick have that right.- Barack Obama 1
He’s right. Every American does have a right to affordable health
care. Every American has a right to a lot of things.
The problem is the Democrat’s definition of what a right means.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men
were born with certain “inalienable rights.” An inalienable right is
yours. You are born with it. They “are fundamental, are not awarded
by human power, and cannot be surrendered.”2
Jefferson continues: “That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men…” Notice the wording. It was deliberate.
“That to secure these rights…” He did not right that “Governments
are instituted among Men to provide these rights.”
Let me put it in context. The Bill of Rights gives you a right to a free
press, yet you still pay for a newspaper and Fox News. It gives you a
right to choose your own religion, but you have to buy your own
Bible. You have a right to bear arms, but have to buy your own gun.
According to the Second Amendment, I have a right to a SIG
SAUER P229, “the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the
Secret Service…”3 But, I don’t have the right to have the
government force someone else to pay. It means the government
cannot prevent my acquisition of that beautiful weapon.
The federal government does play a role when it comes to rights, but
only one. They are there to protect them.
The Democratic candidates for president all think it is the
government’s responsibility to provide each citizen with affordable
health care. It is not. It is the government’s responsibility to keep
your right to affordable health care secure. It is there to make sure
nothing impedes your quest, and if something does, to utterly
destroy it, then get out of your way as you go about your annual
checkup.
They are not there to provide affordable health care by seizing the
property of one to pay for another’s abortion or gastric bypass. They
are not there to compel doctors to provide services at a rate lower
than they want to charge. They are not there to tell you what
treatments you can try and which ones you can’t. Americans need to
understand that. Once you allow government into your examination
room, you will lose all choice in your treatment.
In Great Britain, there are drugs the National Health Service will not
provide, even though they are safe and effective. 4 Some simply cost
too much. If you are fat or smoke, you may not be given health care
when you need it:
“Certain hospitals in the UK who have imposed a ban on
smokers and the obese from receiving particular
treatments have been defended for their action by the
Health Secretary. Patricia Hewitt says it is a perfectly
legitimate clinical decision for primary care trusts (PCT)
to set a collective policy to deny operations to certain
patients.5
Do you think it will be different here?
In Canada, you might not get treatment if you are old. The
government doesn’t have a problem with that either.
“[Dr.] Nesdoly’s position may be justified by a 2005
Statistics Canada Community Health Survey, which
found that 95.2 per cent of people over 65 already have a
family doctor, compared to 75.7 per cent for those
between 20 to 34. And the Ontario College of Physicians
and Surgeons does not restrict a doctor’s right to reject a
person based on age.”6
You can’t really choose another doctor there either. There just aren’t
any. Canada is expected to have a shortage of more than 2,800
physicians by 2010.7 Why would you expect the results to be any
different here?
As with most anything, more government involvement in health care
is the opposite of effective. The government has only one role when
it comes to health care: protect our right to choose the best health
care available. They are not here to provide health care to me simply
because I have a right to it.

If that is the case, I want my government to provide my Sig Sauer

P229…with a full magazine, of course.

—————————————————–

1 http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
3http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_SIG,,00.h

tml
4 http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukdrugswont.html

5 http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24508
6

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/d
octor_age_060317/20060317?hub=CTVNewsAt11
7 Ibid.
Understanding Partial Birth Abortion
Originally published on August 29, 2007.
I was talking to a liberal friend of mine and the topic turned to
abortion. He, being a pro-choice advocate, said he thought a woman
had a right to an abortion. I asked him about partial birth abortions.
He said again a woman has a right to choose. I then asked him to
describe a partial birth abortion. He had no answer.
I asked myself later, “How many more people out there support the
idea in ignorance?” So, I wrote this article about it so those who
parrot the pro-abortion talking points can try to defend this atrocity
with full understanding of where they stand. I will skip the history
and terminology and focus mainly on the procedure itself.
Partial birth abortions, also known as intact dilation and extraction,
are late term abortions. There is debate on what constitutes “late
term,” but it is generally assumed to be after the 20th week, or five
months. In this procedure, the female’s cervix is fully dilated. Then
the abortionist locates the baby by using an ultrasound machine.
Forceps are then inserted into the female and used to grab the baby’s
leg. The baby is then pulled from the uterus, leaving only the head
still inside the woman’s body. A pair of scissors is then jammed into
the base of the baby’s head and opened, creating access to the brain.
A vacuum tube is then inserted into the hole and the brain is
removed, causing the head to collapse upon itself.
A few things to note concerning this procedure that I feel are
important if one is going to have an informed opinion.
Dr. Martin Haskell first used the term dilation and extraction. He:
admitted in 1992 of having ‘routinely’ and ‘easily’
performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions himself, and
that 80% of them are for purely elective [whimsical]
reasons, such a depression or vomiting of the mother.
According to Dr. Haskell, in a tape recorded interview with the
American Medical Associations official journal, American Medical
news, “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth
abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.”
Brenda Pratt Shafer is a registered nurse who worked for Dr. Martin
Haskell. She was pro-choice when she took this job and thought she
could handle working there. She witnessed Dr. Haskell perform Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial birth abortions.
partial birth abortions. Ms. Shafer testified to The U.S. House of He submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of over 2,000 partial
Representative subcommittee on the Constitution on March 21, birth abortions. Only about 175 cases, or 9%, involved health
1996. She said the following: concerns in the mother, and most of those were depression.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up

so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I
could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the
baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby’s heartbeat was
clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.
Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s
legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he
delivered the baby’s body and the arms– everything but
the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the
uterus.
The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping,
and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the
scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s
arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby
does when he thinks that he might fall.
The Los Angles Times reported in it August 28, 1996 edition that
some of the medical reasons for this abortion were cleft palates,
cystic hygroma, and cystic fibrosis. The conditions present in the
mother’s that dictated abortion were “depression, chicken pox,
diabetes, vomiting …”
The left is still fighting against the ban on partial birth abortion. It is
important to understand what they are fighting for so you do not lend
your support for something with which you disagree. It is also
important to understand what you are fighting against, to be more
motivated to defend the voiceless, unborn children. There is no
reason for this practice to again become legal. It is nothing less than
infanticide.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered

suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s
brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.