October 18, 2009

Globaloney Pushback: It’s About Time

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:42 pm

This is the trailer for Phelim McAleer’s documentary, “Not Evil Just Wrong”:

McAleer is the journalist and filmmaker who challenged Al Gore in Wisconsin a week ago at a conference of environmental journalists. As noted here, Gore grievously dissembled in his response to McAleer about the nature of a British judge’s declaration that showing Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth documentary (as reported by ABC News) “violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom” unless it was accompanied by nine corrections to incorrect assertions in the film.

Gore claimed that “the ruling was in favor of the movie.”

Given the world depopulation goals of many enviros (here, here, and here, for starters), I’m not at all convinced that the using the word “evil” is out of line. Behold the compilation that follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

To remove any doubt that greenies want you dead, let these environmentalists/monsters speak for themselves:

  • Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
  • John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
  • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
  • David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
  • David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
  • Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
  • Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
  • John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!”
  • Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
  • Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
  • Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More eco-nonsense, not all relating to depopulation, is here.

The incomparable Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics George Reisman makes an important point about the enviros’ outrageous statements:

There is no negative reaction from the environmental movement (to statements advocation radical depopulation) because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement. This is what the movement believes in. It’s what it agrees with. It’s what it desires. Environmentalists are no more prepared to attack the advocacy of mass destruction and death than Austrian economists are prepared to attack the advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress. Mass destruction and death is the goal of environmentalists, just as laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress is the goal of Austrian economists.

And this is why I call environmentalism evil. It’s evil to the core. In the environmental movement, contemplating the mass death of people in general is no more shocking than it was in the Communist and Nazi movements to contemplate the mass death of capitalists or Jews in particular. All three are philosophies of death. The only difference is that environmentalism aims at death on a much larger scale.

Despite still being far from possessing full power in any country, the environmentalists are already responsible for approximately 96 million deaths from malaria across the world. These deaths are the result of the environmentalist-led ban on the use of DDT, which could easily have prevented them and, before its ban, was on the verge of wiping out malaria. The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.

…. If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement’s openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation.

As Reisman says, at some point “evil” is an apt descriptor. Who can say we’re not at that point?

Anita Dunn and Mao: Establishment Press Predictably Mostly Muzzled

image2929734gThis won’t surprise anyone who reads this blog regularly, but it needs to get on the record nonetheless: The airing of a June video showing interim White House Communications Director Anita Dunn praising Mao and  Mother Teresa as “two of my favorite philosophers” to a group of high school students is barely news in the establishment press.

In an August 2008 report on the Obama campaign, Anne E. Kornblut of the Washington Post also described Dunn as “as senior adviser” who had joined the campaign “in the spring.”

Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media has the videoJeff Poor (covering Glenn Beck’s original broadcast that broke the story) and P.J. Gladnick (on Dunn’s pathetic attempt to excuse herself) at NewsBusters have previously dealt with Dunn’s speech.

Here are the Mao-relevant portions of the speech excerpt:

…. the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers – Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is you’re going to make choices.

…. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said how can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you, and Mao Tse Tung said, you know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine, and think about that for a second.

Mao: The Unknown Story” is probably the most thorough compilation of Mao’s destructive legacy. Authors Jung Chang and Jon Halliday contend in an interview carried at the Amazon link that “Mao was responsible for the deaths of well over 70 million Chinese in peacetime.”

What follows is a round-up of the establishment media’s reaction to the Dunn revelation.

Here is what I found in a search on “Anita Dunn” (typed with quote marks at the Associated Press:

APanitaDunnSearch101809at0945

At the New York Times, the same search request came back with two relevant results:

  • First, there’s a ridiculously biased “Week in Review” piece (“The Battle Between the White House and Fox News”) that appeared in that section’s front page in today’s print edition by David Carr that is dated October 17 online. Though the story more than likely went to print 36 hours or more after Glenn Beck aired the Dunn speech excerpt Thursday evening, Carr made no reference to Dunn’s Mao-is-a-fave speech.
  • Then there’s a Friday afternoon Caucus Blog post (“White House Vs. Fox: Chairman Mao”). The post does refer to Dunn’s speech, carries the YouTube vid, and also carries Dunn’s shameless “Lee Atwater also quoted Mao” justification attempt. That’s nice, but in my opinion keeping the news at the Caucus Blog with a with a conveniently uninformative “this is nothing” headline is a “clever” way for the Times to claim “See, we covered it,” while ensuring that print edition readers, most of whom will never see the blog entry, don’t see it.

Now let’s get to the the Washington Post. A search on Dunn’s name in quotes at about 10:15 a.m. came back with two relevant items.

Readers will love the first one. At the end of a “Live Fix” online exchange with readers on Friday, the Post’s Chris Cillizza had this testy exchange with “Dunn Loring VA”:

Dunn Loring, VA: Questions about Rak Goyle, ok, questions about Anita Dunn, avoided. Isn’t the WH communications director and her crusade against Fox more newsworthy? Are you afraid of what she might do if you address her admitted love of Mao in your chat?

Chris Cillizza: HMMM. No.

I think the WH made a strategic move to publicly hammer FNC and they used Anita Dunn to do it because she is a veteran communicator who also happens to be the White House communications director.

Happy now, Dunn Loring?

The other item is Kathleen Parker’s Sunday syndicated column, where the faux conservative’s predictable reaction to the escalating fight between the Obama administration and Fox News is to “Let the little dogs yap, Mr. President.” Parker’s column first appeared on Friday at other outlets, so it’s probable that she prepared it before Beck’s program appeared.

Otherwise there is no straight-news coverage of Dunn’s Mao reference in the Post.

A search on Dunn’s name at the Los Angeles Times returns one item from yesterday noting that “Dunn’s criticism of Fox News” will be a subject of conversation on CBS’s “Sunday Morning” show.

After sorting by date, a Google News search covering October 15-18 on ["Anita Dunn" Mao] (typed as indicated between brackets) at about 10:45 this morning came back with 77 results. U.S. establishment press outlets make a up a precious few of those results. The ones I found came from:

Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times put up the transcript of a press briefing by White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, which includes this priceless Q&A (bold is mine):

Q. One more question — have you — do you any comment on Anita Dunn’s belief that Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers?

MR. BURTON: I caught some of that from the Glenn Beck show yesterday, but I don’t think anybody takes it — takes his attacks very seriously. We’re just — you know, we go day to day in this White House trying to ensure that people know the truth about the policies and programs and positions that the President holds, and we’re going to continue to do that.

They take Beck sooooo not seriously, yet they’re watching him. Sure, Bill.

Several other items that appear to represent establishment media coverage of the situation only appear because commenters at the respective links brought up the topic. Thanks to those commenters for literally doing the press’s work for them. It’s a shame that those commenters can’t receive rewards for their efforts.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Seeing Red (Ink)

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:50 am

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/red_inkAn all-time record deficit fails to deter those who may really want to make it worse.

_______________________________________________________

Note: This item went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday. Update: The final deficit was released Friday afternoon two days after I submitted the column to PJM and about 18 hours after the column appeared there. The final deficit was $1.417 trillion. Total receipts from economic activity at $218.9 billion, were higher than I anticipated, while outlays came in about $15 billion higher than the Congressional Budget Office anticipated. Those changes don’t have a material effect on the analysis in this column.

_______________________________________________________

While we wait for the finalized deficit numbers from the Treasury Department, what we already know about the results of the past fiscal year should be enough to make anyone sick.

The Congressional Budget Office last week estimated that Uncle Sam’s deficit for the fiscal year that ended on September 30 was “about $1.4 trillion.” You know that things are out of control when the word “about” precedes a figure that large which only goes out to one decimal point.

That $1.4 trillion is more than triple last year’s deficit of $455 billion, and almost nine times the $162 billion recorded in the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2007.

Well over half of the “about” $945 billion increase in the reported deficit ($1.4 trillion less $455 billion), or roughly $520 billion, is due to decreases in receipts from economic activity:

UStreasRecsFY09vFY08at101409

On a quarter-by-quarter basis, the decay in collections has mostly accelerated. Here’s the year-over-year change in receipts from economic activity by quarter for the past two years:

+5.7% — Quarter ended December 31, 2007
-1.4% — Quarter ended March 31, 2008
+5.1% — Quarter ended June 30, 2008
-2.8% — Quarter ended September 30, 2008
-9.3% — Quarter ended December 31, 2008
-18.0% — Quarter ended March 31, 2009
-30.9% — Quarter ended June 30, 2009
-16.2% — Quarter ended September 30, 2009

You might think that the September 30, 2009 results are cause for cheer. Think again:

USrecsQtr0909v0908at101409

These results, based on looking at the sum of all daily receipts and refunds during the two quarters, show that serious current shortfalls have spread to the “withheld” category. By stark contrast, withheld income and employment taxes were actually 2.8% higher during the September 30, 2008 quarter than they were in the same quarter of 2007.

This is important, and very problematic. Withheld receipts primarily consist of federal income and Social Security taxes taken out of employee paychecks. You would not expect that an increase of “only” 3.5% in the average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate during the quarter (from 6.1% in July-September of 2008 to 9.6% during the most recent quarter) would cause receipts from withholdings to dive by 10%. But they have. I believe this is because:

  • Many formerly high earners are earning much less in this dismal economy.
  • Those still working are working fewer hours (government reports confirm this).
  • (Probably less important, and not directly related to labor) Many investors taking retirement plan distributions are having less money withheld from them because of other financial setbacks.

Both employment itself and the utilization of those currently employed are not expected to pick up significantly any time soon. Given that probability, someone needs to explain to me how Uncle Sam’s collections are going to recover significantly. Though there appear to be differences between how Treasury and CBO define “receipts,” CBO’s June 2009 analysis projects that total receipts will go up by about 10% during fiscal 2010 compared to the almost-final result shown earlier, and by an astonishing 40% to an all-time high of over $2.9 trillion by fiscal 2012. On what basis?

On the spending side, year-to-date outlays of $3.27 billion through August 2009 were a breathtaking 18% higher than the previous fiscal year’s first eleven months. CBO estimates that the difference narrowed slightly during September. Big deal; the increase is by far the largest ever in dollar terms, and on a percentage basis makes the worst years of Republican-controlled Congresses look positively tame.

Even beyond that, the current year’s reported spending spree doesn’t even include the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Beginning with the release of its April statement, Treasury decided that TARP “investments” would be treated on a “net present value” (NPV) basis. Even though the cash had obviously been disbursed, Treasury’s change had the effect of reducing reported outlays through March by about $175 billion.

Since then, the government has “invested” billions more in General Motors and Chrysler, both during and afte their respective bankruptcies. Just this month, both GM and Chrysler announced management shuffles in response to their deteriorating marketplace performances. Any accurate NPV accounting should carry these government “investments” at amounts much, much lower than the total of all funds disbursed. Doing so would, and should, add tens of billions to the final reported deficit. One would expect the necessary NPV accounting to be done before the government releases its final results. But this is the Obama administration we’re talking about. Who expects them to admit that these two companies are already teetering?

Having gone through what has to be the worst non-wartime fiscal year in American history, Obama and the geniuses running Congress want to impose de facto energy taxes euphemistically referred to as “cap and trade” on almost anything that emits carbon, take over the health care system (because they have done so well with Social Security and Medicare), and impose a frightening array of tax increases and new taxes that will almost definitely not yield the amounts predicted. All items noted would further pummel an already staggering economy.

We’re either surrounded by fools, or knaves.

The support for the “knave” alternative is becoming more compelling. People who are serious about their desire for an economic recovery simply don’t do the things they have done, and don’t propose the things they are proposing. What they want are things you would expect from the government of a banana republic, not the supposed leader of the free world.

When is someone going to ask Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, or Harry Reid, the folks who first gave us the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy during the summer of last year, why they won’t put a halt to what has brought down the economy, and why they seem so grimly determined to keep it down?

Positivity: Ex-abortionist says Divine Mercy is answer to worldly cynicism

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 8:35 am

From Washington:

Oct 17, 2009 / 08:03 am

A former abortionist has said he believes that Our Lady of Guadalupe enlightened him about the destructive nature of his work, adding that Jesus’ mercy has affected and forgiven him. Devotion to The Divine Mercy, he said, is an answer to the pessimism, skepticism, relativism and cynicism of the world.

Dr. John Bruchalski, who founded the pro-life Tepeyac Family Center in Virginia in 1994, performed abortions before his return to the Catholic faith.

He is a speaker at the upcoming North American Congress on Mercy and discussed his conversion in an interview published at the Congress’ website.

The doctor recounted that in 1987 he was a “typical gynecologist” who believed that contraceptives would liberate women. On a visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, he said, he “very distinctly” heard the words “Why are you hurting me?”

“It was an internal voice. It was a woman’s voice — very loving, very non-threatening. It was very clear, but I didn’t entirely understand it. I believe that voice was Our Lady of Guadalupe trying to make me see what I was doing. But it would be years before I fully understood the message.”

For his residency, Bruchalski worked at an in-vitro fertilization center that was also a contraceptive research and development center. His mother took him on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje in Yugoslavia, where he said the nature of his actions became very clear to him.

Even though he built contraceptive devices and performed abortions, he insisted that God “can save any one of us.”

“None of us are too far away. None of us are too lost,” he told the Mercy Congress organizers.

“Yes, Jesus’ mercy affected me. Christ doesn’t look back on my past. I have been forgiven. ‘Repent and believe.’ The Chaplet [of The Divine Mercy] is so important to me — I have to say it over and over again for me to believe it.” ….

Go here for the rest of the story.