Follow the Money (and the Dogma)

Stop It With the Fear Mongering!

This isn't the first heatwave we've had, and it won't be the last. The climate has always been changing. Give me a falsifiable hypothesis. The dire predictions we've had so far have been stunningly inaccurate. At some point, it's time to admit that the whole theory was bunk.

‘Jaw-dropping’ forecast is warning sign of climate change’s future impact in Washington, scientists say, says the Seattle Times. There's no excuse for this kind of political propaganda. 

Update: okay, it got up to 102.6 today, according to my weather station. I think that's hotter than I remember it ever getting around here. But that doesn't mean there's a causal link between that and human fossil fuel consumption.

Oh, Now I'm a Conspiracy Theorist!

El Guapo

Someone called me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that NASA might have an agenda for global warming. You do not call El Guapo a conspiracy theorist!

Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane

There's an interesting article over at The Blaze, called Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

Of course, he means "climate change denier", not "climate denier", as the article explains. But enough about them This my blog, and this is all about my opinions.

I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. Huge difference. Climate change may or may not be happening. We have, or can get incontrovertible data that will confirm or deny it (although it seems rather inconclusive and open to interpretation at the moment. And it depends heavily on what you choose as initial conditions -- a very common concern for anyone who has ever even dabbled in science).

The thing that I am skeptical about is the hypothesis that there is a strong causal link between human activity and whatever is happening in the climate today. Hear me now and believe me later: The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. As I see it, the burden of proof is nearly overwhelming, because there isn't even any real consensus about where the data is trending. Until that is sorted out, all we have is some weak correlation, which is a huge leap from establishing a cause.

Reproducible experiments are most likely impractical, which means anything we do to counteract whatever it is, would have to be based solely on faith. Without scientific evidence, the watermelons want to invoke the precautionary principle. But without reproducible experimental results, we have no clue what will really work. Whatever random straws we grasp would be no more predictable than religious incantations.

According to Wikipedia,

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

Notice the use of the word "consensus". I always wondered where that came from. Science is based on experimental evidence and proof, not consensus. Now we have a deeper understanding of the narrative. Oh, and see what they did there? Look at the convenient shift of the burden of proof! Welcome to the Church of Our Lady of Anthropogenic Global Whatever.

How Many Statists Does It Take To Change a Light Bulb?

Stolen from facebook:



I don't like CFLs. I do like LEDs, but I think the free market is quite adequate for moving people to more efficient, environmentally friendly lighting. Government mandates are completely illiberal and unnecessary.

Government Control vs. Freedom

I believe that control is the opposite of freedom. How can it not? But I am not an anarchist. With no government, it would be up to us to stand at our front door with a shotgun, to ward off all aggressors, leaving no leisure time (and probably little time to mind our own business, in fact). Kind of like Walking Dead, without the zombies. So limited government -- just enough to secure the natural rights we were born with -- is necessary.

But today I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time defending my rights against the very regimes that were supposed to protect them. It is eating up my leisure time, and what goes on while I'm at work goes unmonitored. They steal from my pantry while I'm out plowing my fields. What's more, they use their plunder against me, giving my tax dollars to grant-grubbing special interests whom I oppose, who advocate enacting more policy that further reduces my freedom. The bulk of said plunder doesn't even go to help the people the pandering politicians pretend to want to help.

I attend city and county council meetings. State and federal legislature meetings are too far away and are too full time for me to monitor directly. But I've seen the sausage being made, and I think if you were really aware of what goes on in there, you'd be alarmed as well. Even some of the ones on "our side" (whichever side that happens to be) don't understand the proper role of government.

Don't even get me started on administrative bureaucracies that by definition, aren't responsible to the voters. They enact regulations having the force of law, but we have no recourse. We can't vote them out. That is not government by the consent of the governed! The fact is, the government we have bears no resemblance whatsoever to the mechanisms that were invented to keep us safe. It's Fahrenheit 451, without the fire trucks.

LA Times Censoring Scientific Debate

I heard on the radio yesterday that the LA Times will no longer print letters to the editor denying climate change, on the assumption, I guess, that such denial would be tantamount to racism or gay-bashing. They evidently do not understand science, the scientific method, or how these issues are settled. Did you know that Einstein's theory of relativity is still being tested? So far the tests continue to support and validate the theory, but even at this late date, we could find something that blows it away. But at least relativity is testable.

I think it’s important to note that the LA Times, as a private newspaper, may exercise their first amendment rights as they see fit. Freedom of the press means newspapers, blogs and broadcasters are free to publish, or not to publish whatever they like. The fact that they have their heads in the sand (or up their asses) is their prerogative. The appropriate response is to start your own publication. “Fair and balanced” isn't a single-publisher proposition. Competition is.

I do not deny that climate changes all the time, as it has done since the dawn of time. We have incontrovertible records of it. I do not deny that we may still be burrowing out of the last ice age. We have incontrovertible records of that too. But I do deny that there is any incontrovertible evidence that humans are in any way responsible, nor can there be. It isn't testable! That's because in order to verify anthropogenic global warming climate change chaos (AGCC) experimentally, we would need a "control planet" (a duplicate earth, but without humans, or at least not industrialized -- it doesn't seem practical to me).

The climate science community has tried to address this shortcoming through computer modeling, but computer models are simply buggy self-fulfilling prophecies. There is no natural real-world way to prove that the computer models have accounted for everything - initial conditions, seemingly negligible factors, getting cause and effect reversed, and the unknown. We can't model what we don't know, and we can't validate what we can't test. It's all synthetic.

I think it's ironic that many of the people espousing computer modeling as a reliable way to prove the AGCC hypothesis are the same ones who denounce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods, artificial flavoring, and who demand "naturally organic" foods. It's inconsistent, to say the least.

'Progressivism' is a Religion: Faith Based, Not Fact Based

Gaia Thingy

For 100 years, classical liberals* have been trying to discredit 'progressivism', A.K.A., socialism, communism, statism, whatever you want to call it. 'Progressives' resent the open market, capitalist system that is based on merit, productivity and industry, because either they, or the people they claim to sympathize with, cannot compete.

While classical liberals have always relied on charity to help the less fortunate (but not the indigent), 'progressives' want to rely on government for that function. While neither mechanism is perfect, government has been tried for the past 100 years, and all we have to show for it is more poverty and more debt. That is because government cannot produce wealth, and when it tries to redistribute wealth, that merely discourages productivity and encourages dependency.

So why has 'progressivism' continued to flourish, while classical liberalism continues to decline? Is it because people don't really want to be free? Is it because people are fundamentally lazy? Is it because people don't like the prosperity that comes with freedom? I think not. So what then?

Well, I think we have been going about discrediting 'progressivism' all wrong. We've been using facts and logic. Facts and logic don't work on 'progressives', because 'progressivism' is a faith-based dogma. It's like a religion. Nowhere is this more evident than with anthropogenic global warming climate change chaos. As I said in an earlier post,

The man-made climate change hypothesis has so many discrepancies, loose ends, untestable truth-claims and outright fraud that it is just begging for some critical analysis. Sympathetic peer review and "consensus" is not experiment. Without rigorous experimental confirmation, the climate change hypothesis is simply a matter of faith -- another religion. If it was properly called religion instead of science, the fact that it should have no role in public policy would be a no-brainer.

When the watermelons call us deniers instead of skeptics, I want to yell, "Don't you mean heretic? This isn't the Holy Roman Empire! I'm sorry about the rest of the world, but here in the United States, we have something called 'The First Amendment'. We don't have to subscribe to your religion!"

The fact is, classical liberals need to find out if anyone has ever discredited a religion before. If so, then we need to use that tactic. If there is no tactic, we need to invent one. The 'progressives' found a tactic that works well against us, namely Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. There are some books that claim to use Alinsky's rules against 'progressives' without compromising our principles, and maybe that will work. 

However, I don't think a derivative approach is necessarily the best approach. I would like to come up with something purpose-built for defeating faith-based systems. So I started looking for articles on the web that claim to discredit established religions. I found one, but this argument fails against Christians, because it makes a fundamental error as to why Christians believe in God. Now don't get me wrong, many Christians and scientists have this wrong also (as I explain here), but this guy doesn't get it right. 

So I don't have any good ideas yet, but let's all start thinking. Just remember that the same tactics that work against 'progressives' may also work on Christians and Jews. I don't want to hurt them, so we need to give them a heads-up. These are dangerous times. 

---

*Classical liberals are people who believe in liberty, as opposed to those people who call themselves liberals, but who are really illiberal control freaks, A.K.A., 'progressives'. I'm reclaiming the word, "liberal". 

Pack'n'Stack, Baby, Yeah!

Sustainability, regionalization, carbon footprint claptrap... The government, the regime, wants to control where you live. Do we really want this?



Pack'n'Stack, baby, yeah! That's how we humans want to live.

When All Else Fails, Manipulate the Data

My wife received an email from Washington Conservation Voters. It goes like this:

Did you know that here in Washington, unlike many other states, we elect a Commissioner of Public Lands? Well, we do. And this year’s race is going to be a doozy!

Sign our petition to show your commitment to Washington Forests.

Four years ago, Washington Conservation Voters helped elect Commissioner Peter Goldmark, a rancher from Eastern Washington, who committed to cleaning up shabby logging practices in forests around Washington, protecting Puget Sound, and addressing the challenges that climate change is bringing to our region.

Apparently, Goldmark’s commitment to clean water and healthy forests has angered one man: Clint Didier.

Didier, a tea-party activist and ex-NFL player, has run unsuccessfully for office before and this year he is challenging Goldmark. He has made it very clear that protecting the environment is not one of his values.

You say tea-party activist like it's a bad thing! Tea parties simply want to re-acquaint American citizens with our government's founding principles. If you disagree with the founding principles, why don't you just admit it? We the People should be able to protect the environment voluntarily, without forfeiting our inalienable rights. But you and Goldmark want to force everyone to do what you happen to think is right, when there is considerable latitude for honest people to disagree about what the problems are, and what the right solutions are. In a free country, private citizens would make those decisions. Does that guarantee success? Better than government, it usually turns out. The screed continues:

• In fact, he has said, the only way to make forests sustainable is “if Man puts his footprint back in the forest.”1
• Shockingly, he believes that “science has been altered so as to make it (global warming) look like it is truly happening.”2
• He believes that trying to protect our state’s waterways from herbicides and pesticides is elitist.3

Wow. Denying climate change. Opposing a healthy Puget Sound. Clint Didier, your policies are too extreme for Washington! Sign our petition and add your name to a growing list of Washingtonian committed to protecting our water and forests.

Wow. You say "denier" like it's a bad thing! What you call "denial", I call "skepticism", and skepticism has been the fundamental truth-detector in science since the discipline was first invented. The burden of proof is on the accuser. That applies to forestry, global warming and stormwater runoff.

What's more, the science has been altered! The famous hockey stick graph was falsified and the data manipulated to present the illusion of a correlation between human industrial activity, CO2 and global warming. So the correlation is much weaker than the IPCC claims, and as any decent scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation. There is no experiment that you could run that can reproducibly and reliably prove causation for global warming, if it exists at all. Why do we have to keep debunking this fraudulent science? The email closes with:

Edie Gilliss
Political Director, Washington Conservation Voters

PS: As fires continue to rage in Central Washington, and throughout the west, we are thankful to have, in our highest environmental office, a man committed to addressing the realities of climate change, since science has shown the link between bigger and more frequent fires and climate change. Please sign our petition now.

1) July 14, 2012, Whatcom Freedom Rally. 7/14/2012. Youtube.
2) Ex-NFLer Clint Didier tackles Murray, and a lot more,” Joel Connelly, 1/11/2010, Seattle PI.
3) Angry Crowd Enlivens County Meeting,” by Mark St. J. Couhig, 9/28/2011, Sequim Gazette.

I will not sign your petition, and we would not be having nearly the problem with the fires if someone who truly understood what freedom and liberty means, was allowing knowledgeable citizens to to manage the forests intelligently and productively. Clint Didier understands what freedom truly means. Vote for Clint!

One World Government

A couple of posts back, I said that President Obama was scheming against the interests of America and its citizens. To prove that I am not some tinfoil hat fringe lunatic (well, maybe I am, but not because of this), I provide this link to a document by the Obama regime (our government until we change it in November, God willing).

While you're waiting for the 2.24 megabyte PDF to download, I'll describe the highlights. The document is entitled, "Global Governance 2025: at a Critical Juncture". If the title doesn't give you chills, maybe the first paragraph of the Preface will:

The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid 1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability.

The idea that peace and stability comes from global governance is as laughable as it is spooky. I suppose a centralized government that was sufficiently domineering could suppress human nature. Humans have always had their differences. That is why we have separate religions, separate states, separate political systems and so on. It is human nature to compete, to invent, to form groups that include some and exclude others. Our founders understood that any government that attempts to govern against natural law (including human nature) is bound to fail, as we saw with the old USSR, to name just one.

Then there's this, from Chapter 1:

Climate change has trespassed the boundaries of environmental politics to become the subject of the global political, economic, and security debate and a new focus of multilateral cooperation cutting across these and other domains.

...spoken with all the usual 'progressive' assertiveness that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a foregone conclusion. Despite the fact that the AGW hypothesis is not predictably reproducible (i.e., it's untestable, and therefore unscientific by definition) -- and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, it is essential to the 'progressive' agenda.

The biggest problem that I see with global government is a lack of diversity. Today, if I want to be oppressed, there are plenty of countries where I can go to be oppressed, especially in the Middle East. If I want to be free, there are plenty... no wait... The United States... no wait... not anymore -- although the US is still one of the freest nations in the world, which explains why we have an illegal immigration problem (as opposed to an illegal emigration problem, like the old Soviet Union and Cuba).

The last time I checked, the United States was a sovereign nation as defined by The Constitution. I do not appreciate presumptuous 'progressives' taking liberties with my liberty, and nullifying our constitutional sovereignty without the consent of the governed. And I'll be damned if I'll give my consent.

Climate Panel Adopts Controversial 'Grey' Evidence

NewScientist reports, Climate panel adopts controversial 'grey' evidence. Yeah, this is new...

Climate scientists are likely to face charges of putting politics before science, following two decisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month, the IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the elected officials that make up its bureau. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.

Quotas and gender preferences? Sure, why not? Objective scientists do that all the time!

It had also voted at a meeting in Kampala in November 2011 to increase the role in those assessments of "grey literature": publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the "glaciergate" scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice.

I don't think "grey literature" would be any worse than the fraudulent, peer-reviewed "hide the decline" literature. What does peer review matter, when the peer review is hand-picked to rubber stamp the agenda? This saves having to cover up or falsify any dissent among the reviewers. The IPCC has finally publically admitted that it has no interest whatsoever in objective truth; only a predetermined political outcome.

The panel publishes three voluminous assessments of the state of climate science every six years, the last of which came out in 2007.

I got your state of climate science right here! Fortunately, IPCC has absolutely no jurisdiction within sovereign US borders -- right? It looks as if Orwell was only off by 28 years.

Study: Obesity Could Lead To Depletion Of Earth's Resources

Here's your justification for regulating health and food choices:

ATHENS, Ga. (CBS Atlanta) – A recent study conducted by scientists in London found that the obese persons of the world are playing an increasingly large role in the rate at which the planet’s finite resources are used.

“Increasing population fatness could have the same implications for world food energy demands as an extra half a billion people living on the earth,” the study concluded.

The findings were published in the BMC Public Health journal earlier this year. (Continue reading...)

This is a study from London, but this kind of collectivist thinking has been gaining momentum on both sides the Atlantic for a long time. I am becoming more and more convinced that our government run public schools have been doing a great disservice since the early part of the 20th Century, replacing critical objective thought (including the scientific method) with post modern claptrap (progressivism). Our technology (a lingering product of objectivity and the scientific method) provides a wealth of information, but most recent graduates cannot interpret it in any kind of meaningful way. These "scientific studies" always seem to be designed to promote an agenda.

The current dithering with string theory and parallel universes is the price we pay for this uncritical thinking. Have you noticed, science hasn't had any major breakthroughs since around 1920? It ended with Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Theory. Is it any coincidence that 1913 was the year we passed the 16th and 17th amendments? The Wilson regime? I'm starting to think not.

Tragic, Unhealthy and Completely Predictable

Author Brian Sussman interviews a victim of our public indoctrination system:

Her conclusion is tragic, unhealthy, and completely predictable.

Corruption: Lake Whatcom Reconveyance

I presented this in open session to the Whatcom County Council two weeks ago. 

Honorable council members, 

It has come to my attention that the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance has once again wormed its way onto the Tuesday agenda – this time without a hearing – at the behest of narrow special interests attempting to create the illusion of broad support.  

This effort has already removed a large amount of land from future private use and/or private ownership. This land is already “protected” inasmuch as proponents desired that. Therefore, the matter before you now is the final reckoning. Do We the People of Whatcom County really need an additional 8,700 acres of park? Does this amalgam of DNR land and trust parcels represent the correct  8,700  acres? Is this really the most pressing need at this time? 

What say the county meet all of its fundamental responsibilities of legitimate services to its citizens (e.g., a new jail) before it takes on any more responsibility for land ownership and management?!  You already have the land tied up in trusts; why not just leave it that way? If Bellinghamsters want a playground or a nature preserve, let them make a private park, on their own dime. Please do not saddle the rest of the county with that expense. Further, the justifications for this “preserve” or park for wildlife management, transportation, and watershed protection are a distortion of roles that do not apply to the Parks department.  

 A safe jail is a legitimate and essential function of government. Parks are nice to have, but they are not essential government functions, even if someone could objectively prove they would “help the environment”. Please direct your efforts to the far more urgent needs of Whatcom County citizens.   

Karl Uppiano, etc.

Earth Day is April 22

Our Hero

Earth Day was first launched nationally on the 100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union. It is not a coincidence.

Scratch an environmentalist, and in most cases you’ll find a collectivist (communist) just beneath the surface. They’re watermelons: Green on the outside, and red on the inside. They don’t trust the free market or individual citizens to do The Right Thing™. Only by central planning and coercion will The Right Thing™ be done, on earth, as it is, um, on earth. Who gets to determine what The Right Thing™ is? Why the dictators, of course!

So, let's celebrate! (And there was much rejoicing!) Yaay.

Agenda (Tinfoil) 21 (Hat)

Preservatives have recently started connecting the dots on Agenda 21, and the 'progressive' shape-shifters have naturally started calling us conspiracy theorists. Never mind the fact that Agenda 21 is on full display for all to see, where they say they intend to do precisely what we say they are doing! You'd think they'd take the website down. But no matter. It's all archived now anyway. There's no plausible deniability.

Part of the reason that the conspiracy theory attack seems to gain traction is that Agenda 21 is broken up into smaller pieces, like a jigsaw puzzle, so the useful idiots on the ground who are actually busy putting together the corner pieces, can't see the big picture, until the whole thing is grandly moved into place, when it would be too late. So much for government deriving its just power from the consent of the governed.

So, who are the useful idiots?

Education: The teachers, who are blithely "teaching" students e.g., Connected Math -- which asserts that there are no "wrong" answers. Here's the thing, though: If you are building a life-critical system such as a bridge, airplane, or medical equipment -- lawyers will beat you to death with every "wrong" answer they can find. You bet your arse there are wrong answers! Regardless of what the teachers say, the real world doesn't kid around.

Connected Math discourages teachers from teaching students how to do arithmetic. Instead, students are supposed to develop their own algorithms for time-tested operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. While it is possible that a fourth grader might come up with a ground-breaking improvement over the ones which have served us well for a thousand years, it is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that a heavily indoctrinated teacher would recognize it as such, much less point out the superiority of it to the chagrin of the other students. Still, should any teacher happen to question whether Connected Math is defensible, it's nothing that a little "performance review" can't fix.

True scholars would argue that most education, and certainly objective disciplines such as mathematics and science, should be devoid of any political agenda. But here it is. And here...

Though not part of Agenda 21, it is significant that The US Constitution has not been taught favorably or comprehensively in public schools for many decades. Why would that be? Well, for starters, The US Constitution, in addition to being being the official specification for the US Government, was specifically designed to limit government to the powers enumerated therein.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. ~ James Madison (Federalist 51)

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Why would government schools not teach about limited government? Do you see the conflict of interest?

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): A recent trend, these federal-grant-powered "non-profit" corporations contract their "services", a.k.a., agendas to local and state governments. These tend to be environmental organizations, pushing for farm plans, water rights regulation, land use controls, LEED bulding ordinances, and just about any other illiberal control freak regulation you can think of. Such a deal: our taxes pay NGOs to instruct our government on how to oppress us. Now, mind you, I might personally want a LEED home or office building. Storm water runoff might be a problem here and there, and I'm not opposed to using permeable paving stones in lieu of poured concrete where it makes sense. But why do these people want to use the force of government to compel the rest of us to join their religion? If their religion is so great, wouldn't we join them voluntarily, if only we knew "the truth"? Everything we need is already right there in The First Amendment.

Local Government: Lacking adequate formal education about constitutional principles (see above), local governments (city councils, county councils, planning councils, etc.,) take an oath of office to uphold and defend something they know scarcely about. As such, they are all too willing to allow the federal government to override and usurp their authority, by taking government grants (which always -- always -- have strings attached), or by simply accepting state or federal controls where local control used to be. Or they allow ICLEI to come swooping in under the constitutional radar with centralized non-government control (to be imposed locally, with global uniformity -- forget diversity). Our local officials accept ICLEI's "help" to implement "sustainable", "environmentally friendly" "solutions" to "problems" that We the People have not asked to have solved.

Agenda 21? No, never heard of it. We're not doing that. What conspiracy theorist is saying that? The tea parties? Now, that makes sense!

Most of these local participants don't even know they're implementing Agenda 21. It's best that they don't know. It gives the useful idiots some plausible deniability.

The New Dark Ages

The tea parties might be the last gasp for liberty for another 1000 years, during which time human numbers and mobility might drop sufficiently that another small group of rebels could found a new republic on some isolated continent, based on Classical Liberalism, which will again over a couple of centuries grow, thrive, prosper and flame out.

It's weird... animals and other constantly changing natural conditions drive species to extinction all the time. But when we humans do it, it's somehow different. I'm not saying that we should deliberately set out to drive species to extinction (although we have, and failed: anopheles mosquitoes, smallpox virus...). Many species boom and bust, and humans are no exception. We may think we're invincible with all our technology, but we're not so great. We're just having a bloom. The irony is we might bring about our own demise in the name of sustainability. I’m convinced that it is no exaggeration to say that if successful, the watermelons will usher in a new dark age.

The Only Question(s) You Need

I have had this at the top of my sidebar for over a year:

THE ONLY QUESTION YOU NEED

"Which article of the Constitution gives government the authority to do that?"

If more and more people start asking this question, I think most of our worst political problems, in all branches and all levels of government would go away by themselves, almost overnight. When a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi that question about the healthcare bill, her deer-in-the-headlights response was, "Are you serious?" Well, we are serious, and politicians should be afraid to step out of their offices without a credible answer to that question. It is the only "litmus test" that we need.

It really takes so little effort, that it is at least worth a try. The beauty of it is, this really should appeal to honest people from anywhere on the political spectrum.

But in light of EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power In Name of 'Sustainable Development', I think we have to add another:

Wouldn't it be preferable to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights?

Of course, if we answered the first question, we certainly wouldn't need the second one, but as I am very fond of quoting,

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Resisting the "natural progress of things" is getting to be like pushing a gigantic oppressive sustainable boulder uphill. If we stop to rest, it will roll right over us.

The Watermelons Are Onto the Fact That We're Onto Them

I know you think, you think you know, but I think you don't. ~ Zaphod Beeblebrox

The watermelons are onto us. Lloyd Alter, at treehugger (a discovery company), writes,

This past summer I think about twelve people read my post Agenda 21: The United Nations Threat To Control Our Lightbulbs, Our Lifestyles and Our Lives, where I wrote about how historic preservation, formerly the preserve of conservative types, has morphed into socialist control of private property, a tool of Agenda 21. I called it a Tea Party Theory of Everything:

It ties it all together into one neat package, making climate change, light bulbs, transit, smart growth, fuel economy, everything a plot...It is a spreading conspiracy theory that is becoming the underlying ideology of the crazy right and that has serious legs. It is no joke.

(Continue reading Agenda 21 Wackos On The Move to Stop Smart Growth)

Lloyd concludes with,

Almost every battle over historic preservation is now becoming a property rights battle, and almost every property rights battle now has an Agenda 21 tint to it. We really have to wake up to this threat.

No, Lloyd, Americans have to wake up to this threat to their natural rights. It might not be a conspiracy, but it certainly is an agenda. Agenda 21 uses environmental bait-and-switch to up-sell its illiberal collectivist schemes.

This is no idle threat: We've had multiple executive orders, from George H. W. Bush, William H. Clinton and now Barack H. Obama (constitutional illiterates all, apparently), invoking federal agencies such as the EPA and BLM to implement key elements of the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Protocol (even though Congress refused to ratify it). It's called "soft law". Then, flying in below the constitutional radar, ICLEI organizes local governments to implement Agenda 21. Warm fuzzy euphemisms such as Smart Growth and Sustainable Development mislead otherwise skeptical community leaders, businessmen and citizens who ask, essentially, "where do I line up to surrender my civil liberties and right to self-determination?" "Non profit", non-government organizations (NGOs) with names like Sustainable Connections, ReSources, and FutureWise, take government grants (your tax dollars) to "educate" you in the ways of sustainability, and sue you if you don't get in line. You're paying for your own oppression.

Don't just take my word for it, go to their websites and explore for yourself what they have planned for us. I provided the links. Remember, these websites are selling their agenda in glowing terms. You might need some translation. "Smart Growth" is already being implemented in your cities, counties and towns, probably without your awareness or consent -- this is intentional. In the halls of government for Bellingham and Whatcom County where I live, the saying goes, "if it isn't permitted, it isn't permitted". Meaning that if you don't have a permit, you can't do it. Say what?! Hello, commissioner! Government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around! These very expensive permits are required to ensure that any development or construction complies with very expensive requirements to satisfy environmental extremist and scientifically unverified measures to protect watershed, airshed (!), habitat and whatever other arbitrary barriers may be erected by planning and zoning ordinances to control normal human activities.

Don't think it's not happening in your town: After you've familiarized yourself with Agenda 21 and ICLEI, a.k.a., Sustainable Development or Smart Growth, start attending your city and county council meetings, and planning and zoning commission meetings. Read the ordinances. Listen for the buzzwords -- they're all over the place. Then, start asking yourself, and others, these questions:

• What does Agenda 21 say, exactly?
• What do Smart Growth and Sustainable Development actually mean?
• What is ICLEI really trying to implement?
• What are the EPA, BLM, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, etc., trying to implement?
• Do you notice any similarities?
• Do you think they're a just a coincidence?
• Does the logical outcome have anything significant to do with the environment?
• Wouldn't it be preferable to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights?

And then ask,

• Have you ever tried remodeling a place you were renting?
• How much permission and input did your landlord require?
• Have you tried remodeling your own property lately?
• How much permission and input did your government require?
• Do you want to be a mere tenant on your own property?
• Have you ever wanted to own your own property?
• Why invest most of your life's work to purchase something that you have few rights to use for your own purposes?

Now that they know we're onto them, the watermelons are going to start squalling like hammered cats, calling us conspiracy theorists, paranoid nut jobs, and whatever else they can think of. They'll start renaming things -- picking new words to describe their tired old designs. Don't be deterred, because this is important: It is preferable to preserve our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights!

They'll tell you capitalism, free enterprise, self-determination cannot be trusted to save the planet. What they're saying, in essence, is that government has to force us to go where free people would not go voluntarily. Is that not the definition of tyranny and oppression? I think we can do better than that.