Al Gore's Nine Lies
Well, Al Gore won the Noble Peace prize this week (yawn). Apparently "world peace" and being an environmentalist are the same thing. However, a British court found that nine substantial "facts" in his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" were false. It took me some time to find these "Nine Little Lies", which were inconveniently left out of his "documentary". It seems that (shock) Gore made his claims up. And not little things, either. The court enumerated 9 discrete non-truths that Gore perpetrates in his celluloid screed against other people using energy.
• The Government’s expert was forced to concede that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad drying up were not caused by global warming.
• The film claims that ice core evidence proves that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes temperature increases. The Court found that the evidence showed the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute Hurricane Katrina, et al. to global warming.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. The study actually said that four polar bears drowned, but because of a particularly violent storm.
• The claim that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age was judged a scientific impossibility.
• Global warming causing specie loss and coral reef bleaching? The Government could not find any supporting evidence.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The court found the evidence clear that Greenland would not melt for millennia even under warming.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence is that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests sea levels could rise by 20+ feet, displacing millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise a matter of centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that global warming caused rising sea levels prompting the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government could not substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Philly punishes Scouts over 'gay' issue
Raises rent for building use by $199,999 a year
Prompted by opposition to the Boy Scouts' rule disqualifying homosexuals as troop leaders, Philadelphia has forced the city's local chapter to pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters. As WND reported in June, Philadelphia's city council voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council to have its headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land "in perpetuity" for $1 a year. Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix announced this week the Cradle of Liberty Council must pay the $200,000 rent if it wants to remain in the building after May 31.
Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council, told the Associated Press the higher rent money "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp."
"It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat," he said.
Homosexual organizations previously challenged the Scouts' policy, but lost at the U.S. Supreme Court level, where a 2000 ruling confirmed that as a private group, the Scouts could set restrictions for their leaders. The activist groups then turned their sights on property arrangements such as in Philadelphia, where the Scouts had been using a parcel of public property, only with some maintenance costs, for years. Former WND columnist Hans Zeiger, who wrote a book about the Scouts and their battles, "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America," said the Boy Scouts since 1911 have been reaching out to the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans and inner city children with the lessons of right and wrong.
"When it comes to a Scout troop, sexual orientation is an issue that goes beyond differences in skin color or economic status. It affects such matters as tenting arrangements and the development of pre-teenage masculinity in a close-knit group of boys and men," he wrote. "The BSA's position against homosexuality is not just an issue of moral principle in an effort to affirm the Scout Oath and Law, it is a serious safety effort to prevent cases of sexual abuse and harassment," he wrote. "So here's what I say to the radical Left in the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed", Take away the funding. Seize the 75-year-old headquarters building. The Scouts can survive without it," he wrote at the time.
ME: This sort of harassment is illegal. The US Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts and it is outrageous and un-American to try and attack them in this way. It is clear that radical homosexuals are trying to bankrupt the Boy Scouts by getting them involved in lawsuits that they cannot afford. A despicable effort by gay extremists.
Free Trade vs Fair Trade
More and more I am finding that I am totally against "free trade". Having strong Republican roots, I normally believe that the free market should dictate trade and that individuals and companies are far better at developing and regulating business than the federal government. However, recent trade "agreements" have literally gutted the United States workforce, seriously imperiled middle class jobs in this country, and made multi-national corporations that got their start here into extremely wealthy "global businesses" with little loyalty to the United States. The real problem are trade deals like CAFTA.
CAFTA is a trade agreement that will not help the United States. While rhetoric from the White House says that it will open up those countries to increased goods and services from the United States, is there anyone with a whit of intelligence that thinks that poor and under educated residents of Central America will be able to afford any goods imported from the United States? I seriously doubt it.
All CAFTA really does is allow US companies greater access to Central and South American markets; stopping the spread of "the evils of capitalism" is one pf the main reason why leftist Democrats in the US Congress are opposing it. Cheap agriculture from Central America will also gut American farmers here in this country, and US industrial jobs will also flee to these countries where they can produce their goods more cheaply. Again this will badly hurt US jobs. Below is a chart of industrial jobs (just the industrial ones) that have been lost thanks to Bill Clinton's illegal signing of the NAFTA treaty.
Republicans are foolishly supporting CAFTA in large numbers, showing that they are radically out of touch with the American people and their own base (see chart below).
Or take a look at "free trade" with China. Before they received permanent trade status with the United States, trade with China was fairly steady and yet with the passage of Most Favored Trade status (in 1997) China began a massive trade dumping campaign that literally cost the US over $200 billion in trade deficits every year; a happy result for China (see charts below).
Free trade really isn't "free", so I now propose "fair trade" instead. This policy would not focus on getting wealthy US companies greater market access around the world but would begin to protect the products that we make here, especially food production. The US is importing more and more food from overseas because it is cheaper to do so, gutting the average US farmer in the process. Will the USA one day be unable to feed itself because it gets most or all of its' food from overseas? Probably, and stupidly I might add.
My proposed "fair trade" would also make at least 50% of a product costing more than $50 to be made or assembled here, thus increasing industrial jobs within this country. Other nations do something similar, so adopting it in the United States isn't such a bad idea. Otherwise all the industrial jobs will go overseas, and all we will have left is "service industry" jobs. Are we all just going to "service" one another? I hope that the government begins to take a serious look at trade deficits in the United States. Even if we added a 50% tariff to all incoming goods, everyone world-wide would pay it because the US is the largest consumer nation on the planet and everyone wants to do business with us (like everyone wants to sells goods to Walmart). The US Congress should oppose CAFTA and repeal NAFTA as well.