Green lobby plan to destroy jobs & farmland, raise food prices and save a fish is partially successful

And by partially I mean that it did destroy the jobs & farmland and raised food prices.  But it didn’t help the fish. This was a stupid plan even if it would have helped the fish, but it is crime-of-the-decade stupid for causing nothing but destruction.  When will we learn not to trust the Greens?

The green lobby assured everyone it knew what it was doing when it got a judge to cut water to Central Valley farmers to save the delta smelt. But while the Valley economy is now ruined, it hasn’t helped the smelt.

Some day, environmental radicals will be held accountable for crimes against the ecosystem — the human ecosystem.

Back in 2007, they convinced federal Judge Oliver Wanger to rule that the Endangered Species Act gave the federal government the right to cut water to thousands of farmers in California’s Central Valley to protect a 3-inch baitfish called the delta smelt.

That ruling turned many of the Valley’s prized vineyards and almond groves into wastelands. Jobs were lost, family farms were shut, fields went fallow and food prices rose.

But there’s been just one problem with this overreaching of the law: Cutting off water didn’t save the smelt.

A draft of a new study from the Delta Stewardship Council shows the water cutoffs had no effect on the smelt. The smelt remains endangered even as farmers have been punished with a policy that cut off as much as 90% of their water.

Federal Judge Proven to Be Wrong « Timothy Matters.

WI Governor proposes that union members pay a small portion of their retirement and health care; “civil” Liberals cry for his murder

Update: A good list of questions for the teachers.  Despite their Helen Lovejoy impersonation (“Won’t somebody please think about the children?!”) it is obvious who they are really thinking about.

The teachers, says reader Tom, keep claiming that it’s all “for the kids” yet their actions here prove that the kids are last on the list as teachers worry more about safeguarding their unions, their high salaries and lucrative benefits.

So if the teachers care about the children, why are they:

  • With Schools Closed, special meals for kids have stopped. Aren’t leftists all worried about feeding poor kids? Do kids have to starve while teachers involve themselves in political rallies?
  • Many kids whose parents work will now be home alone while parents are at work. Why don’t these leftists care that kids are dangerously unsupervised?
  • Many low income families rely on after school programs to help their children. Now this help has been closed by the actions of leftist protestors.
  • Other families are now losing pay as they have working family members that are now staying home because their kids are not in school. This hurts families.
  • All the days that have been missed will now have to be made up at the end of the year and this will cost the schools even more to stay open more days. These extra days will also disrupt families.
  • Did the kids taken from schools to attend the protests last week have parental permission slips filled out? Why did the unions and teachers put the kids safety at risk just to benefit their own salary and benefits?
  • If teachers are claiming that they are all about service to the community, why don’t we just pay them what we pay our soldiers? They shouldn’t mind that, right?
  • If government is the solution to all America’s ills and the supporter of kids, how is it that teachers shutting down state government and Democrats running away to other states to hideout is helping fulfill that charge?

—–

These are just Twitter feeds.  They don’t begin to capture the hatred from the rallies in Wisconsin.  This is what happens when people get entitlements: They get vicious when someone tries to take away even part of them.

Just like in Ohio, the irrationality and immaturity of the pro-union crowd is astounding.

Where is the “civility” crowd now?  Is this all Sarah Palin’s fault?  Why are Presidents Bush (41) and Clinton doing a civility gig in Arizona when those shootings had nothing to do with political discourse?

Hat tip: Lone Wolf Archer

Roundup

I used to appreciate the ministry of Norm Geisler but I’ve been really disappointed in how he helped cover up the Ergun Caner scandal.

Organized Medical Fraud at Wisconsin Protests – Oh, but it is all for the children, right?  I wonder what other unethical things these doctors do.  This link has a video.

Many of the protesters at the Capitol in Wisconsin have been cheating their students by playing hooky, shafting their coworkers by skipping out, and defrauding the taxpayers by malingering. They did this so that they could attempt to overturn last November’s elections while evading some of the consequences of abandoning their professional responsibilities.

Bernard Nathanson, a famous convert from abortionist to pro-lifer died recently.

He was one of the architects of the pro-abortion movement, a president of NARAL, and an abortionist who oversaw the destruction of 75,000 babies. As part of this, he and his colleagues made up statistics about the number of women hurt or killed from illegal abortions.  He performed late-term abortions, and admitted once that 80% of those abortions were on healthy women with healthy babies.

Then, he converted to the pro-life movement, aided by the advent of foetal ultrasound.  Doctor Nathanson then became one of the most prominent members of the pro-life community and an advocate for the humanity of the unborn.

Guess Where I Found Predominantly, Overwhelmingly White Crowds? – Oops, sorry, I forgot that the race card is only for bashing conservatives.  The link has a nice summary of the race-baiting done when covering conservative rallies but it appears no sources were available where the MSM bemoans the lily white crowds at the pro-union protests in Wisconsin.

This is hugely important: What are the economic effects of the green environmentalist agenda? Once again the environmental extremists cause catastrophic economic damage that wouldn’t be justified even if their environmental goals were met.  But to make things worse, they don’t even solve what they claimed they would.  This is like the dishwasher detergent issue, only much worse.

Former lesbian: “I’m proud to follow Jesus”

Wisconsin civility update: Have you seen the MSM go nuts over the protestors’ signs threatening to rape conservative news women and wanting the Governor dead?  They also posted home addresses of legislators so they could be harassed there.  Charming.  Here’s a good summary of the hate.

The Abortion Rights Movement Makes Heroes out of Child-killers

Remember the notorious Pennsylvania abortionist exposed in January, whose practices even the secular media labeled as inhuman and monstrous? (See my blog post.) Well, here is yet another abortionist, James Pendergraft, in an honored place in a prochoice march just a few years ago, defending his right to make millions of dollars killing children. Read this account of how he is now performing a new method of late-term abortion in the DC area.

Dogma

The conventional wisdom of macro-evolutionists is that they are on the side of science, facts, reason and logic and that Christians are not.  I addressed that falsehood here, but wanted to recap a conversation that is a good representation of many experiences I’ve had.

An educator with a master’s degree (though not in science) was trying to gig me about an initiative in his state that would have required criticisms of Darwinian evolution to be addressed in the high school curriculum.  It was clear that he strongly opposed it and that he (correctly) assumed that I favored it.

I know when I’m being baited, so I calmly and briefly replied with three things:

  1. Just one of the things I see as a major flaw in the Darwinian model
  2. Just one of the reasons I see for the merits of Intelligent Design
  3. Why I oppose the restrictions on academic freedom that most Darwinists support (this was pre-Expelled!, or that would have been a great homework assignment for him).

Considering that he brought up the topic, it was now his turn and obligation to reply.  He could have tried to refute any of my points with facts and logic or even started fresh with his positions.  But here’s the complete transcript of what I got:

[Long pause] “I can see you’ve studied this issue more than I have.”

That’s it.  That was the complete response of Mr. Science Person.  As much as I appreciated the concession speech, I rightly surmised that he had no intention of doing more research or changing his position.  But I’m the dogmatic one, right?

Now does that prove that I was right?  Not at all.  I think I am, of course, but that isn’t the point of this post.  Poorly informed Christians (and I concede there are many) aren’t evidence that there isn’t a God, just as poorly informed atheists don’t prove that there is a God, and vice verse.

But it does prove that he lives in Stereotype Land.  He isn’t pro-science, he’s just a pro-atheist cheerleader.  Despite his education, he knew nothing about what he was advancing and nothing about the opposing arguments.  He isn’t skeptical, he’s firmly entrenched in his dogma.  He isn’t a free-thinker, he’s picked a worldview and is deliberately ignoring contrary evidence.

I find his approach to be the rule, not the exception.

Contrast that with the Christian worldview, partly reflected in passages like this:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

1 Corinthians 15:12–19 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Roundup: De-funding Planned Parenthood

I love to see politicians doing something right for a change, like de-funding Planned Parenthood, one of the most vile, racist organizations on the planet (I say that without hyperbole).  They have been busted hiding statutory rape and covering up underage prostitution.  They have taught teens to ignore the morals of their religions and their parents.  They kill unborn human beings for a living.  They were founded by a racist eugenicist.  And so much more.

If pro-aborts want to exercise their “choice” to fund Planned Parenthood, then that sick, sick organization will be glad to cash their checks.  But they shouldn’t force their pro-abortion views on other taxpayers and make them part of the killing machine.

Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time.  What are you doing about it?  If you are a Christian you should be voting against the destruction of innocent human beings every chance you get.  Sadly, too many Christians (the uninformed kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) keep abortion legal.

It is great news that the House did the right thing, but the work isn’t over.  The Senate will be a harder battle.  But the good news is that the evils of PP will be more publicized (though still not enough by the pro-abort mainstream media).  The more people know the less they’ll support PP.

Kudos to the House for restoring a cornucopia of pro-life policies

Ramen Noodles, the official food of the pro-life movement

The House is currently debating the GOP proposal to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

Abortion radicals are raging mad.

Raging mad that Republicans are exposing the abortion predators with story after story of criminal negligence, death, and exploitation at America’s taxpayer-subsidized death clinics.

Raging mad that Republican women dare to talk about the psychological harm and trauma to young women lured to Planned Parenthood and kept in the dark about abortion alternatives.

And mad that Republicans are describing in graphic detail the procedures used to rid the world of The Unplanned.

Most macabre abortion defense of the night so far: Just a little while ago on the floor, Wisconsin Democrat Rep. Gwen Moore argued that abortion was better for unplanned babies than a life “eating Ramen noodles” or “mayonnaise sandwiches.”

Oh, the humanity — some kids might have to eat Ramen Noodles – just like my family!

And this gem from Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (an embarrassment from the Houston area):

This is not about abortion, this is about saving lives.

They use that self-parodying fallacy so often they don’t even realize they are doing it.  It is the foundationally bad  reasoning underlying nearly every pro-abortion argument: Assuming what you should be proving, namely that abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being.

From Jill Stanek:

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards condemns House passage on February 18 of an amendment that would defund PP. “It’s funding that saves lives, and they killed it”…

Yep, because PP is all about “saving lives” and not killing things . . .

Pro-abort congress members speak against the de-funding of Planned Parenthood by arguing by (irrelevant) anecdote and their classic “better dead than poor” rationale (which, btw, would mean these pro-aborts think 90% of the world should be dead).   One congresswoman is being made some sort of pro-abort heroine because she inserted her miscarriage story after a description of a second trimester abortion.

Why do pro-aborts still trot out the “coat hanger abortion” canard while ignoring the damage done by “safe and legal” abortion mills?

Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business.

From 2002-2008, Planned Parenthood received more than $342 million in federal taxpayer money through Title X funding alone. In its 2008-2009 annual report, Planned Parenthood revealed that it received $363.2 million in various federal, state, and local government grants and contracts for that fiscal year, a significant increase from the prior year. During that same time period, they performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions, which equates to 888 abortions each and every day.

If the number of abortions performed alone doesn’t convince you of Planned Parenthood’s agenda, just compare that number with other services the organization provides to pregnant women. In 2008, their number of adoption referrals dropped a staggering 51 percent from the prior year to a meager 2,405. Additionally, the number of prenatal clients they served was less than 0.09 percent of the total services provided by Planned Parenthood in 2008. Pregnant women seeking help from Planned Parenthood were 27 times more likely to receive an abortion than to receive prenatal care or be referred for adoption. That is an appalling and heartbreaking statistic.

Lila Rose on Glenn Beck

Then there is this false teacher who doubles down on Planned Parenthood but forgets to mention their serial hiding of both statutory rape and underage illegal alien prostitution.  How convenient.  I guess if you don’t mention it then it didn’t happen.  See House Republicans Continue Assault On Women; Religious Leaders Oppose De-funding Planned Parenthood, written by false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, who is pro-legalized abortion and wants taxpayer-funded abortions but hypocritically mentions Jesus’ concern for the “least of these” in many of his posts.

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I will continue to speak out in support of Planned Parenthood and their critical mission of providing health care.This attempt to strip away the rights of women to make their own reproductive health care choices cannot be allowed to stand.

Chuck appears to be as ignorant of basic science as he is about Christianity and economics: He doesn’t realize that abortion occurs after two people have reproduced and made a new human being.

But why didn’t Chuck even mention Planned Parenthood’s serial hiding of statutory rape. Is it good for women if you hide statutory rape so you can make money off abortions?  Chuck thinks it is a moral good to take 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades.  You’d think that at least his atheist wife (yeah, he’s not much of an evangelist, is he?) would have enough human decency to stop that.  If his girls have 30 yr. old boyfriends when they are 13, will Chuck be glad PP is there to hide the crime of statutory rape and to kill his grandchild?

And why didn’t he mention how Planned Parenthood had been busted hiding traffickers of underage, illegal prostitution?  How does he reconcile that with his faux concern for others?

I will say this for people like Chuck: They make it easy to spot fake Christians.  Man, these guys aren’t even trying anymore!

Then there’s this big lie.

Planned Parenthood is proud of its vital role in providing young people with honest sexuality and relationship information in classrooms and online to help reduce our nation’s alarmingly high rates of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Planned Parenthood helped cause the increase in STDs by giving false hope of the effectiveness of condoms and more.

Chuck also quotes the deceptively named Religious Coalition  for Reproductive Choice (they appear to be equally ignorant about science):

As a coalition sustained by our faith and pursuit for social justice, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice asks: Where is the justice in destroying services that support responsible behaviors and healthy life styles? The answer is obvious: there is no justice and no compassion. These cuts must be stopped by the Senate because they are morally indefensible.

How can these moral freaks prattle on about justice, compassion and morality when their sole concern is to increase this? And if PP is such a swell organization, why don’t they contribute themselves instead of forcing other taxpayers to?

This Wisconsin thing is working out nicely

Good wrap-up at Cheesehead Revolution? : The Other McCain.

Let me get this straight: Union-loving Dems shirk their duties and leave the state?  And what, exactly, is bad about that? (That’s horrible behavior on their part of course, but if they leave and don’t come back that would be swell.)

Unemployment is stuck at 10% — which means non-union unemployment is much higher — and they think this will improve their reputations?

Poorly performing teachers close at least 15 school districts to go fight for their entitlements?  Yeah, that’ll garner a lot of sympathy.

Obama’s campaign arm is in the middle of this?  Shocking.

Chris Christie of New Jersey is a new American hero.  I think he has emboldened others to finally stand up to the unions bankrupting the states.

Unions have done horrible things to this country.  The bold part of this clip from The Simpsons sums up unions in one paragraph.

[Mr. Burns is reminiscing about his grandfather’s old Atom Smashing Plant]
Burns’ Grandfather: Come on, men! Smash those atoms! You there, turn out your pockets.
[Two goons seize a waifish worker and turn out his pockets]
Burns’ Grandfather: Aha – atoms! One, two, three, four… SIX of them! Take him away!
Waif: You can’t treat the working man this way! One of these days we’ll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we’ll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
Burns’ Grandfather: The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!
Mr. Burns: Oh, if only we’d listened to that young man, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.

The (faux-) civility crowd must be going nuts over the violent crosshairs imagery, death threats and more from the charming Obama-supported union folks.

Addressing the “Christians are anti-science” falsehood

I enjoy reminding pro-legalized abortionists that I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.  When I mention that I often get comments like this one:

You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

But I am consistent with both. I dispute one sub-branch of one of the dozens of branches of science, and I do so because of the lack of evidence in favor of it, the great evidence against it, and the institutionalized bad philosophy and suppression of academic freedom propping up the pathetically bad worldview.

I follow the facts and logic where they lead. And there are many facts besides those “proved” by science.  As useful as science is you can’t prove with science that we should only accept scientific truths (even if you ignore how often those “truths” change and are politically motivated).

And unless you create all your own test equipment from scratch and replicate every single experiment you rely on then you have to use history, trust eyewitness testimony and summaries made by others even when making scientific claims.

Again, there are dozens of branches of science.  I simply disagree with one part of one branch, and they generally concede that they deliberately ignore non-material alternatives.  I’ve come across many quotes like this one from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Question-begging “science only” views like that speak volumes.  Also consider those whose philosophy-masquerading-as-science leads them to conclude that something can come from nothing.  And they call that science and have the nerve to attack us for our views?  Pathetic.

They have to make an astounding assumptions on the key question outside their field, which is, “How did the materials get here?”  And even when staying within their field, they can’t answer this important question: “How did life arise from non-life?”  They have struggled mightily to find a way but all they do in both cases is to fall back on is their blind faith, aka the “science of the gaps.”

They act like that Darwinian evolution is foundational to all biology, as if we can’t understand photosynthesis or that life begins at conception without their nothingness-to-molecules-to-life-to-Angelina-Jolie worldview.

Darwinists are also at odds with the branch of geology, and in a much more extensive way than we are with biology, so that more than evens the score right there.

And then there’s the systematic and cowardly Expelled!-type restrictions on academic freedom perpetrated by the alleged pro-science crowd.

They pretend the Bible is a science textbook and then attack that straw man, quibbling about things like references to “sunrise” and “sunset.”  Do they call up the Weather Channel each day to tell them how anti-science they are?

And why don’t they ever seem to bring up the mystery of how the Bible boldly proclaims in the first verse that the universe came into being at a point in time?  Just a lucky coin flip, eh?  Or how Genesis describes how vast the number of stars are, even akin to the number of grains of sand in the sea, at a time where most thought there were only 1,100 stars or so.  Or the uncanny way the author of Job knew about very unique properties of Pleides and Orion?  (See Job 38:31).  More luck, I suppose.

Back to biology, they mainly ignore an irrefutable fact of biology when addressing the most important moral issue of our time: Abortion.  They prattle on about how important science is to improve the human condition (which, if used properly, can do a great deal) but they exhibit a heaping dose of FAIL when applying a most basic, well attested, high degree of consensus scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception.  If they can’t apply that scientific fact to improve the human condition (i.e., don’t crush and dismember innocent human beings), then why blindly trust them to apply whatever they learn to other moral issues?  (I’m ignoring for the moment that their worldview can’t ground universal morality anyway.)

Finally, there is the fraud one would expect in any field that involves money, power, reputations and careers.  As a biblical worldview would predict, people will sometimes do unethical things to hold onto all those things.  You need to have an inherent skepticism when analyzing their truth claims and evidence.

So, once again, I am too pro-science to be pro-choice.  And the naysayers are the ones who are wildly inconsistent with their alleged pro-science position.  They abandon it on the most crucial moral issue of our time.