I Am The Walrus
Print View
I AM THE WALRUS
The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its
voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States,
as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger
than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental
litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming
hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our
society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our
economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the
course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success
at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as a
threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the
Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global
warming...the Pacific walrus.
Well, you really didn't
expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear
was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the
fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear
as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science.
Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to
decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its
habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy
from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with
the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty
years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming
has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently
had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat,
resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000
in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some
20,000 to 25,000 bears!
In a world where success only
furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the
environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus
listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a
petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as
threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore
petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the
petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best
predictions of climate models. "As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus,"
she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush
administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire"
circumstances now moves forward on the walrus.
But how can
they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all?
The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very
difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and
250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for
the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a
new walrus survey. "We do have a
population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon,"
he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition." Why does that statement make me skeptical?
Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when
startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of
deaths. One AP news article described how "scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes" and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that "3,000
to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or
three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of
Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square
miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The
recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses
to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of
stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have
congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile
from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled
up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem
residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more
vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers.
Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in
a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the
stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying
aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like
the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance?
But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could
there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters?
Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link:
As
the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by
indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses
per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789
animals per year from 1996 to 2000.
Thats 3,000
to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000
they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet
they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding
ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the
Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of
one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who
the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be
true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased
numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase
in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that
don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious
"inconvenient" truth?
So lets be sure we understand this.
The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is
no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger,
than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be
concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly
get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of
the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the
culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or
is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange
reason, this comes to mind:
Psalm 14:1 The
fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they
have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of
godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to
us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion
of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once
already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now?
Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop
the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one!
The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well
in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how
they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so
that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted
over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this
together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me,
the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and
we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm
feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The
bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to
us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax.
Its very
important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the
use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the
legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to
combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was
the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would
redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet
congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars
mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers
will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7
paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest
pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a
massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to
combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it
will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support
action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps
McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it
comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama
has in mind:
"We can't
drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries
are going to say OK." B.H. Obama
Mr.
Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by
everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to
have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and
hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The
draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to
implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by
enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that
consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective
they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as
a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for
confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these
policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in
this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you
they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra
costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to
pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for
vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have
already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel
crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford
both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able
to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually
believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it)
fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the
dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures.
They just want control. We must not give it to them!
This
environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to
prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising
price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to
foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are
clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other
hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American
people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our
economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's
demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration.
Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and
Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil
companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that
beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for
60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160
years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to
allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it.
During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have
continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar
as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production.
This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production
Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and
natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it
would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of
such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on
the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also
would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a
long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and
hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our
destruction.
Just this week, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a
bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on
straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all
the republicans voting for it. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin.
And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative
to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in
Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the
five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17
billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next
decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of
Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies
will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse,
it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no
incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go
democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their
oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it
with!
Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife
has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has
had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another
"inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental
groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow
oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature
preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is
going for these days?
If organizations such as these can
see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why
can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil
companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own
country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows
that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously
not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to
congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the
U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you
don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction
of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this
statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to
the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:
"guess
what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about
socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the
government running all of your companies."
I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly
that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her
honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and
others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment
are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to
survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world
will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we
going to do about it...or them?
As the Psalmist said: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving
us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well
destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up
north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to
their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they
are saying?...
