-Caveat Lector-
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
CONGRESS ACTION: March 4, 2001
=================
DRILLING FOR THE FACTS: The battle for energy security has begun. On February
26, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) introduced the National Energy Security
Act of 2001 (S.388), a broad-based strategy to wean this nation from its
excessive dependence on imported oil and providing for, among other things,
oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The usual
suspects are up in arms. Former President Jimmy Carter wonders, in effect,
how anyone can dare to propose drilling on his land. Mr. Carter apparently
thinks ANWR belongs to him. In an interview with the Associated Press, Carter
claimed "I inherited the mantle of protecting ANWR from Eisenhower". Near the
end of his presidency, Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, and he now apparently feels that he owns ANWR. As do the
media and environmental pressure groups now mobilizing to protect the "public
lands" of the ANWR. It has obviously never occurred to them that the "public"
in "public lands" includes more than just tree-huggers and New York City
subway strap-hangers. It includes people who drive their cars -- yes, even
SUVs -- to work, people in the Northeast who want to be able to heat their
homes without taking out a second mortgage to pay for the fuel, and people in
California who actually want to be able to turn on their lights without
facing rolling blackouts. Environmentalists are trotting out the usual
scare-mongering about how drilling in ANWR will harm the local wildlife,
especially the caribou herds. This in the face of evidence from 25 years of
oil drilling at Prudhoe Bay where, far from being harmed, caribou are
thriving, with the herds more than quadrupling in size. The same extremists
issued the same dire warnings of devastation to animal life before Prudhoe
Bay was opened to drilling. But the hallmark of environmental fanaticism is
that facts and evidence mean nothing.
Despite the apparent belief of environmental extremists, there is no such
thing as a free lunch. The public cannot have the abundant energy and
electricity that consumers want and that our economy needs without obtaining
the necessary fuel. In the case of ANWR, that means drilling for oil and gas
in 2000 out of 19 million acres of frozen tundra -- an area less than half
the size of Kennedy Airport in a vast preserve nearly two-thirds the size of
the entire state of New York. It should also mean a revival of the nearly
dead nuclear power industry, an industry and a technology that has been
driven to the edge of extinction in this country by the "no nuke" extremists.
In a related development, according to the BBC, buried in the latest
catastrophic predictions of doom from global warming, the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) observed that nuclear power
can help to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And horror of
horrors, the Los Angeles Times reports that even Californians have begun
discussing nuclear power in polite company again. As far back as 1997, even
the Washington Post opined that nuclear power might be one way to meet the
Clean Air Act and Kyoto global warming treaty goals of reduced emissions. But
the no-nuke Luddites can calm their fears -- now that nuclear power is again
being discussed by serious scientists and policy makers, the sycophantic
media will soon fall back into their rigid, politically correct orthodoxy of
denouncing nuclear energy. Nuclear power reactors are apparently just fine to
help North Korea supply their energy needs, but Americans simply cannot be
trusted to use nuclear power responsibly (recall Bill Clinton's 1994 deal to
give North Korea two nuclear reactors in exchange for their promise to
abandon their nuclear weapons program, a deal that North Korea eventually
renounced, and a deal that raised hardly a murmur among the left-wing
establishment at the time -- should we be so crass as to point out that North
Korea is a Stalinist regime of the sort so beloved by the left?).
In his AP interview Carter went on to claim that there is no energy crisis
today, and that supporters of ANWR drilling have exaggerated the energy
problems that we face. Just don't think about the high technology companies
thinking of moving out of California to other states that can actually supply
them with electricity, where they won't be charged exorbitant rates for
electricity to subsidize low rates for consumers who still think they are
entitled to something for nothing at everyone else's expense. Forget that we
have gone from depending on foreign sources for 40% of our energy needs, to
60% dependence, during Bill Clinton's tenure. Carter, of course, knows a
thing or two about energy crises -- those who remember his presidency also
remember the federal mandates to turn down thermostats and put on a sweater,
and the long lines at gas stations that had run out of gas, thanks at least
in part to his own policies.
BUSH BUDGET: Is this what "compassionate conservatism" looks like -- spending
money like drunken democrats? President Bush gave a masterful performance in
his budget speech Tuesday, but it would have been easy to believe that one
was listening to big spender Bill Clinton. There were some concessions to
conservative ideas, such as private Social Security accounts, but those
concessions carried with them the implication for more federal
micromanagement of people's lives, such as "allowing younger workers to make
safe, sound investments". Where does the government get the authority to
dictate how it will "allow" people to invest their own money for their own
retirement? Bush also skillfully adopted Clinton's technique of usurping
one's opponent's phraseology, while re-defining those words in line with
one's own ideology. Take health care. For years, democrats have been
clamoring for a "patient's bill of rights", by which they meant unleashing
their trial lawyer friends to wreak havoc in the health care industry, while
pocketing hefty fees to donate to democrats. Bush also spoke of a "patient's
bill of rights", but explicitly said that it would be designed to "promote
quality health care, not frivolous lawsuits". Perhaps Bush's big spending
rhetoric was just a tactic to pre-empt democrat demagoguery, and we will have
to see what the details reveal about Bush's commitment to the vital necessity
of actually reducing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government, rather
than just slowing its growth. The case for tax cuts was made as well as it
could have been -- the people have been overcharged, and the money belongs to
the people who earned it and not to the government. Yet the media and
democrats continue their mantra about tax cuts for the rich. ".polls say that
Americans recognize that his tax cut is weighted toward the rich." ran one
editorial. With a constant repetition of disinformation for months, what else
would a public that has lost its capacity for critical thought "recognize"?
Repeat a lie often enough, and people start to believe it.
But rather than talking about a patient's bill of rights, it would have been
far more important if Bush had spent at least some time talking about that
other Bill of Rights, the one ratified in 1791; the Bill of Rights that,
along with the Constitution, has been reinterpreted and redefined into
virtual non-existence. Keeping more of our money out of the hands of grasping
politicians is a great idea; but taking steps to restore freedom and limited
government under a Constitutional republic would be even better. Democrats,
and some republicans, are highly critical of Bush's budget; and republican
"moderates" are already demanding more spending and smaller tax cuts. Just
imagine their reaction if our federal government actually returned to
operating within the constraints of its legitimate Constitutional authority.
BUSH STILL THE WINNER: The media recount of Florida ballots goes on, and Al
Gore is still a loser. Results continue to come in, with media re-counters
using, in the words of the Miami Herald, ".the broadest possible standard
that can be used to decide when a mark is a vote." They counted every dimple,
pinprick, and hanging chad, in addition to cleanly punched ballots. Yet even
counting ballots that should not be considered legitimate votes under Florida
(or probably any other) law, the Herald says that ".the overall finding
remains the same: Bush emerges as the winner."
And the media recounting proves one more thing that has been said,
repeatedly, by people opposing the multiple hand recounts -- those punch-card
ballots were not designed to be counted by hand. Counting them by hand
changes them, creating new votes where none existed before, thereby forever
destroying any value those ballots may have once had as evidence of anything.
According to the Miami Herald, "The experts also note that chads fall every
time the ballots are handled. In other words, every recount is likely to turn
up new votes. The first recount mandated by state law found 98 new votes in
all Miami-Dade precincts -- probably the result of partially dislodged chads
falling off the ballots, experts say. Further bolstering the fallen-chad
theory: In its review of 139 precincts, the canvassing board turned up 388
new votes. The Herald's review of the same 139 precincts found 426 new votes."
Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe, you may tender your
apologies to PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (get used to it) at the White House;
you can get in line with all the others who persist in lying about who
"really won" the election. Of course no apologies will be forthcoming, which
is just fine. As long as the democrats persist in their delusions, as long as
they retain Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe as the public faces of the
Democrat Party, as long as they continue to send out the Daschle/Gephardt Duo
to spew class warfare socialism, growing numbers of people will come to see
democrats revealed as the vindictive, childish, narrow, grubbing, would-be
elitists that they really are, people who have only one concern in life --
perpetuating their own power by any means necessary.
REAGAN BEST PRESIDENT: On President's day, a popular poll judged Ronald
Reagan to be America's best president. But you'd have to read the British
newspapers to find that out. Our major northeast media propaganda mills
couldn't be bothered reporting it. In the days following the poll, the
Associated Press buried the poll results in data from past years; and
published a piece on "First Family Foibles", claiming that the pardons
obtained by Hillary's brother for four hundred grand weren't at all unusual
because everybody does it, being sure to mention that Reagan's daughter Patti
Davis posed nude in Playboy and "said yes to recreational drugs" (certainly
in the same league as putting a "for sale" sign on the presidential pardon
pen). The Washington Post published an article whining about why "Some People
Just Can't Like Clinton" ("Sure, they thought he was a good president, maybe
even a great president.", but poor Bill just appears bad because he is a
victim of his over zealous enemies in that nasty old vast right wing
conspiracy). And the New York Times took a pass altogether on All The News
They Didn't Feel Was Fit To Print.
FIRE THOSE RESPONSIBLE: Following the arrest of a reputed spy within the FBI,
the Washington Post had what passes for a brilliant idea among the
inside-the-beltway left-wing punditry -- since FBI Director Louis Freeh
accepted responsibility for failures within the agency, he should be fired.
Should have been fired long ago, according to punditry wisdom, but Bill
Clinton couldn't fire him since the FBI was investigating illegal Clinton
fundraising and it would have appeared improper to fire him. But Bush can,
and should, fire Freeh. Except that, as far as anyone knows, the FBI is still
investigating illegal Clinton fundraising, and Freeh knows where all the
bodies are buried (figuratively speaking, of course). Which is probably why
Bush asked him to stay on as head of the FBI in the first place, so to fire
Freeh now would effectively put an end to any Clinton accountability under
ongoing investigations. Which would, no doubt, make the inside-the-beltway
left-wing punditry exceedingly happy. But of course the punditry made their
recommendation that Freeh be fired with the highest of altruistic motives,
for the good of the country and law enforcement, without any thoughts at all
about allowing Clinton off the hook once again. Just like they demanded that
Janet Reno be fired when she accepted responsibility for Justice Department
failures that led to the deaths of over 80 people at Waco. Oops, they didn't
demand that Reno be fired at the time, did they? But of course the punditry
made their recommendation that Freeh be fired with the highest of altruistic
motives, for the good of the country and law enforcement..
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
========================
Legislative Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html
National Energy Security Act of 2001; Senator Murkowski (R-AK) website:
http://murkowski.senate.gov/energy/energysecurity.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Kim Weissman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists!
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
