Obama Is After Your Children
In my previous article, "Our Prussian 'Public' Schools," I described how the government uses education to take over our children's minds, by taking them out of the home and placing them in government "training camps" called public schools for several hours each weekday, but the government is not through in its takeover of our children. President Obama wants the U.S. to ratify the
U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which will essentially give the government total control of our children, not only during school hours, but 24 hours a day in our homes.
If this happens, it will be the most egregious intrusion into the private lives of individuals yet, to a degree only imagined by totalitarians of the past. The so-called, "rights of the child," include, "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," the right to freedom from "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," and a right to what is "best" for the child--which is not determined by the parent, but the child.
As a parent, your only rights will be to feed, cloth, and shelter your child, and you will be held responsible for anything bad that happens to the child. You will have no right make your child go to Sunday School or Hebrew School if the child chooses no to go, and if you are a Christian of Mormon, and your child decides to be a Muslim you may not interfere in that choice. You do not have a right to check what your child has in his room or closets, or what he is accessing on his computer because that would violate his privacy, but if he ends up on drugs or becomes involved in gangs you will be held responsible. You cannot decide what your child should wear, or eat, or read or not read, if that is not "best" for the child. If you force your child to have a haircut, expect to be hauled off to jail and your child taken away from you, because it is, "best" for the child.
What Shall I Call Them
I do not usually have trouble finding the right word, or at least a satisfactory one, to express what I intend, but I have to admit I find no word that adequately fits the nature of those who are pulling off the greatest fraud in history destined to ruin the economy and destroy people's lives and fortunes. I'm referring, of course, to the great global warming scam and those putting it over. Since their main tactic has been to keep people scared out of their wits by an endless parade of pending disasters, perhaps they should just be called terrorists, which they are. What I really am looking for is something that will identify just how low and evil they are. I've considered the following:
Con artists, grifters, humbugs, frauds, hoaxers, flimflams, shams, cheats, bamboozlers, fakes, hoodwinkers, swindlers. You see the problem? Nothing quite catches the degree of sliminess and evil befitting these liars and crooks.
Too Little Too Late and The Wrong Issue
Perhaps some real scientists, at least, are trying to expose the fakers for what they are, but even the
Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change to Chicago, which includes some of the best climate scientists who do not support anthropogenic global warming is a tepid affair that does not want to "call names." Well the other side certainly doesn't mind calling names--and neither would I, if I could find the right one.
Still, I'm glad for the sake of science, that some are exposing the scam for what it is, like Robert Felix, author of,
Not by Fire, But by Ice, whose article,
Lieberman-Kerry bill predicated on a lie I published in the Autonomist; or Paul Driessen's excellent article, "Ken Cuccinelli v. 810 academics," published in the Autonomist today.
I wrote Robert Felix a note, thanking him for the article, but pointing out that everyone has missed the real issue. He agreed with me and published the note on his site, and I've reproduced it below:
What To Do
Please don't take this as a criticism of you or your article, but there is a point I've been making for a long time. The environmentalists have pulled off a slight-of-hand trick that everyone has fallen for. By making everyone believe the debate is about, "science," they've won the main issue without debate. Your last sentence is an example:|
"Do we really want to pass a control-and-tax bill; do we really want to destroy our economy, based on the lie of 'unprecedented global warming'"?
The issue is not whether there is global warming or not. It doesn't even matter. The issue is, nothing justifies oppression, nothing justifies any government controlling people's lives or businesses. Government has no business doing anything but protecting individual liberty, and the right of every individual to live their lives as they choose. The moment the emphasis is off of that, it is a tacit admission that some disaster, some pending catastrophe, cancels truth, and justifies oppression. The entire global warming debate has done exactly that, and the liberals and leftists have won.
Now, I know anthropogenic global warming is bunk, and at least for science's sake, needs to be exposed. But, in terms of politics, it's the wrong debate, and no one is addressing the correct one.
I do not tell other people what to do, but for those who are asking, "what can we do," I can make some suggestions.
Although it would be fitting for those whose evil I cannot even find an adequate word to describe, I'll not recommend for those perpetrating the global warming fraud what the Muslim's are recommending for those who blaspheme Islam--a death penalty for them all. Don't misunderstand me, it's not that I don't think that is what they deserve, it's just not up to me recommend it.
If it were possible I'd get everyone of them by the neck and give them a good shake while yelling in their face, "it's not your environment!." I'd like to do the same with every congressman, senator, educator, and especially Obama while yelling in their face, "they are not your children!" If they all fell to the fate the Muslim's plan for blasphemers of Islam, the only feeling I would have is the feeling one has after leaving a very stinky place; that wonderful sense of relief to be in the fresh air outside.
Here is one thing you can do. Stop being afraid to say, especially in the presence of those who have swallowed the global warming lies, such your children's teachers for example, fellow employees, or even complete strangers:
"There is no such thing as man-made global warming."
"No one can predict the future of climate and anyone who says they can is a liar."
"There must be separation of Climate and Government, period!"
I have always felt that being offensive should be avoided by reasonable men, but have come to the conclusion that environmentalists are very stupid, intentionally obtuse, and will tell any lie and obscure any truth to put over their socialist collectivist agenda. They are so dumb, that nothing but offense will get through to them. Since I cannot recommend the Muslim solution, when dealing with environmentalist, especially the "global warming" crowd, one should be as offensive as possible. It's their method, and the only one they apparently understand. "Freedom of speech," after all, means, "freedom to offend."
Debating them is a waste of time, but here is something you might have some fun with. Ask them to pick a date, any date, when global warming will have become so apparent and any of the predicted calamities will have actually occurred that no one will be able to deny it. Make a bet with any of them who are willing, for any amount they like, giving them any odds they choose, that on that date, there will be no global warming and none of the predicted calamities. If they are unwilling to make the bet, it's because they know it is all bunk. If they are willing to make the bet--it's proof a sucker is born every minute. Who knows, if you get enough takers you just might end up as rich as Al Gore.
óReginald Firehammer (05/31/10)
All comments and criticisms will be read, and, if decent, published. Please include the title of the article. Questions are also welcome.