Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Local Letter to the Editor

I found the March 22 Enquirer editorial, “Contract still more Big Brother, less Pope Francis,” alarming and bombastic for many reasons. First, what business is it of The Enquirer whether Catholic schools require that their employees not actively oppose Catholic teaching?

Teachers ministering and shaping the future of our children certainly ought to be held to a high standard. There would be outrage if the media started questioning the right of Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or other schools or institutions to require that their teachers or leaders not oppose the fundamentals of their faith. Perhaps that’s the price Catholic schools pay for being so successful that parents of different faiths choose to enroll their children to take advantage of the great education. But the whole point is that it is supposed to be a Catholic education, not something else. What concern is that of The Enquirer?

The headline is misleading. How can a contract be more like Pope Francis? This is a legal employment contract, which unfortunately in this day and age is required to prevent lawsuits. It’s not a press release,marketing material, sermon or mission statement. To compare such an administrative necessity to the wonderful message of Pope Francis is disingenuous and ignores the same local message coming from Catholic charities, schools, ministries, and outreach to the poor and sick.

The Enquirer claims the contract “forces teachers to dance a ridiculously fine line when discussing things such as gay rights and gay marriage in class, outside school and in private.” On the contrary, teachers who adhere to church teaching when discussing any “controversial” topic won’t go wrong. That’s what parents sending kids to Catholic schools expect.

It is wrong for The Enquirer to frame the contract as “a choice forced upon them by an archdiocese more intent on holding the line in a culture war than preserving human dignity and understanding.” Preserving human dignity and understanding are fundamental ideals for Catholic schools. The Enquirer and popular media are not the sole arbiter of these ideals. Please see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It is ridiculous for The Enquirer to claim, “Students also face real consequences as they see their role models gagged, and their identities squelched as immoral.” No one is asking a teacher to be perfect. We are all sinners. The contract does not require teachers to be saints. The contract does not target one’s identity, but rather one’s behavior. After all, it was Catholic philosopher St. Augustine who wrote in 424 what has come to be known as “love the sinner but hate the sin.” It is fair that Catholic schools expect their teachers not appear on the next reality TV show filmed in Cincinnati.

The Enquirer states, “The Catholic Church is an inherently conservative organization.” This is a mischaracterization of a church that also opposes the death penalty; supports immigration reform and health care for all; advocates for social and economic justice; and ministers in prisons. It becomes clear that The Enquirer is not finding fault with the contract supporting church teachings as much as it is attacking the church teachings themselves. This being the case, where does it stop? “Moral questions” on various topics are sure to arise in the future as the influence of secular society encroaches on the personal sanctity of faith. Certainly the church is entitled to the same protection from such attack on its core principles under the First Amendment as is The Enquirer.
Butt out.

THE HATE RACKET

THE HATE RACKET

How one group cons government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it!

It never has made sense, and most Americans are at a loss to explain it.

Why – in an era when virtually all violent extremism and terror activity in the U.S. comes from those in the grip of radical Islam – is the government obsessed with "rightwing extremism"?

Likewise, why are the major news media always looking for – one could almost say hoping for – evidence that "rightwing extremists" are the culprits in high-profile terror attacks, as proven by network news reports absurdly suggesting the Boston Marathon bombers and the Aurora, Colo., movie theater mass shooter were actually "rightwing extremists" or "tea party" members.

Even the Obama-era Department of Homeland Security and FBI have been preoccupied with threats of "rightwing extremists," warning law enforcement to watch out for unstable constitutionalists, radical pro-lifers, violent Second Amendment advocates, "anti-immigrant" activists and, especially, returning military veterans.

With genuine mega-threats to the American homeland looming daily from murderous, genocidal jihadists, why the fixation on phantom "rightwing extremists"?

Meet the Southern Poverty Law Center. This super-wealthy public-interest law firm headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., which decades ago made a name for itself by fighting the Ku Klux Klan, today presents itself as the nation's premier defender of civil liberties and protector of the innocent from violent extremism. Behind this veil, however, today's SPLC is revealed to be the wellspring and dominant think tank for outrageously defamatory leftwing attacks on individuals and organizations that embrace traditional Judeo-Christian values.

The group's primary modus operandi? Demonize and defame mainstream conservatives, Christians and Jews by lumping them together with genuine haters like neo-Nazi Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Then highly publicize those "Hatewatch" lists and "Hate Maps," soliciting millions of dollars in donations to help SPLC combat all those supposed rightwing "haters" and "extremists" out there.

But now, the SPLC stands exposed as perhaps never before in the sensational March 2015 issue of Whistleblower, titled "THE HATE RACKET."

Recently, the bubble of illusion surrounding the SPLC burst for millions of Americans when the supposed civil rights organization attacked Dr. Benjamin Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon and likely 2016 GOP presidential contender, by adding him to its "extremist watch list." Ironically, the soft-spoken, high-achieving, adversity-overcoming Carson is widely considered one of the most positive role models for young black males in modern America.

So, what was Carson's offense, for which he was – just like many other individuals and organizations before him, including WND – cast as a hateful and potentially dangerous rightwing "extremist" by the SPLC?

Fasten your seat belts: Dr. Carson stated, "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

"Wait a minute," said Whistleblower Editor and WND Vice President David Kupelian. "For politely expressing a view identical to the view embraced by virtually every person in the entire world at all times and in all places, except for some people in the U.S. and Europe in just the last few years, Dr. Carson was publicly defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and held up to ridicule by being portrayed as akin to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party."

Why does all this matter?

"Why would anybody even care," asked Kupelian, "what some venal, far-left organization says, especially one that is widely criticized – by both the left and the right – for being little more than a huge money racket, frightening rich, old, clueless liberals into believing America will soon be overrun with drooling Klansmen lynching blacks on every street corner if they don't send big donations to the SPLC?"

It matters because, as "THE HATE RACKET" reveals, this particular far-left organization exerts a huge influence not only on the major news media, but on the United States government, including the Department of Homeland Security. It's no coincidence that the government's notion of who constitutes a threat, a hater, an extremist, a potential terrorist, a danger to the American homeland, mirrors that of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Unfortunately, the SPLC's demonization of supposed "haters" and "extremists" also fixes a target on the backs of many mainstream Christian and conservative Americans and groups. Never was this point more dramatically made than when a confessed domestic terrorist admitted to FBI investigators he was inspired to violently attack the Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative Christian group headquartered for three decades in Washington, D.C., after seeing the FRC identified on the Law Center's notorious "hate map."

Here's how Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, FRC's executive vice president, describes the scene in the March Whistleblower:

On Aug. 15, 2012, a man went into an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., and shot a building manager – shattering the major bones in his left arm. The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, wanted to kill as many people in the building as he could. Fortunately, his rampage of violence was cut short by the man he shot, Leo Johnson, before he could become a mass murderer of the employees at the Family Research Council.

Corkins was a pro-gay political activist. He told investigators he "wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face." Less than a month earlier, Chick-fil-A restaurants had seen a massive, national demonstration of support when it was learned that a foundation associated with the firm’s owners gave some minor financial support to organizations that supported natural marriage. Thus, in Corkins’ mind, the restaurant chain became associated with opposition to his pro-homosexual political agenda.

Corkins entered the Family Research Council with a 9 mm pistol, two ammunition clips of 15 rounds in his front pocket, the rounds in the gun and a box of 50 additional rounds. He also had 15 individually wrapped Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He was not puffing things up when he told his interrogators that he intended "to kill as many people as [he] could."

Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush after serving 36 years in the Army as an original member of Delta Force and commander of the Green Berets, later reflected on the FRC attack: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting at FRC. How would you react if you had created a map that was used by a terrorist to attempt to kill dozens of people? Wouldn’t decent people conclude … that you were fortunate to have escaped being forever linked to mass murder? Wouldn’t you change course? Of course, that is what decent people would do, but decent people do not run the SPLC."

Highlights of "THE HATE RACKET" include:

•   "Meet the extremists" by David Kupelian, on why a super-wealthy leftwing group would liken Ben Carson and WND to Klansmen and neo-Nazis

•   "Wellspring of manufactured hate: Inside the Southern Poverty Law Center" by James Simpson

•   "Famed neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson branded 'extremist'" by Bob Unruh, on shocking attack on America's top black role model because he opposes same-sex marriage

•   "SPLC steps in it with Ben Carson smear" by Joseph Farah, who says "apology" to one of America's most respected black leaders' proves the group is vulnerable to public opinion

•   "King of the hate business" by Alexander Cockburn, in which celebrated leftwing writer exposes what he calls the "arch-salesman of hate mongering, Mr. Morris Dees"

•   "Harpers exposes 'The Church of Morris Dees'" – iconic liberal publication quotes Dees' business partner as saying, "Morris and I shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money"

•   "Crushing dissent in the name of tolerance" by Robert Knight, who says "the SPLC has long been the U.S. government’s prime source for what constitutes a hate group'

•   "Military warned 'evangelicals' No. 1 threat" by Jack Minor, on Army briefing that listed Christians as America's top extremist list, ahead of Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and the KKK

•   "Obama DHS: 'Right-wing extremists' a greater threat than ISIS" by Chelsea Schilling, on a new government report that predicts jihadists aren't the worst threat for domestic violence in 2015

•   "FBI scrubs key 'hate-crime' partnership" by Bob Unruh, about what happened after the SPLC was "linked to domestic terrorism in federal court"

•   "MSNBC conspiracy theorists" by Joseph Farah, on how the far-left cable network aired an SPLC-assisted attack on WND

•   "Amazon urged to blacklist 'haters'" by Bob Unruh, on SPLC's audacious attempt to put traditional-values groups out of business

•   "The politics of hate" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. ("Jerry") Boykin, who says: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting" at the Family Research Council

•   "The ridiculous ‘hate group’ list" by Robert Spencer, on how repeating the SPLC's defamatory accusations has "become a staple of every report from lazy leftist journalists"

•   "Standing up for Hamas" by Daniel Greenfield, on how the SPLC defends supporters of the genocidal terror group

•   "'Smear artists'? There's no artistry in SPLC's smears" by Don Feder, on how the controversial group equates conservatives, from Dinesh D'Souza to David Horowitz, with Klansmen and Nazis

•   "Liberal lies, Brian Williams and the SPLC" by Matt Barber, a humorous look at how a possible "win-win" job shake-up might provide a new position for the disgraced NBC anchor

•   "Internet in bull's-eye for new 'hate speech' plan" by Jerome Corsi, on a proposal that would evaluate online language and make "recommendations"

One more question: While it's understandable that conservatives and Christians, whom the SPLC maligns for a living, would oppose the group, why would the left condemn with equal harshness what is, after all, a powerful leftwing organization? Why would the well-known liberal-left magazine Harpers, as well as Alexander Cockburn, one of America's most celebrated leftwing journalists until his 2012 death, publish withering rebukes of the group? As "THE HATE RACKET" proves, it's because the SPLC, which started out in the '70s as a law firm dedicated to defending civil rights, no longer even appears to believe in the causes it once espoused.

It's all about the money.

After all, when Ben Carson was asked if he thought the SPLC was "crooked," he replied, "Oh, definitely. Certainly that's been the impression of everybody I've heard from."

Left wing twisted thinking on display

Left wing twisted thinking on display

From a Letter to The Editor, Ohio Paper

The delusion: Corporate greed, high poverty are related

The Narrative: On March 16 there were several articles in the Enquirer related to poverty. One reported almost half of Ohioans live near or below the poverty level. Another article, questioning who speaks for the black community, pointed out that blacks have a disproportionate number of health problems, such as infant mortality, and suggested that where people live and work can affect their health. On the very same day there was an article that reported an Apple smart watch could cost more than $10,000 for the gold-plated version. There was an article about GE working harder to compete globally and how large they can grow will partially depend on how many pesky regulations they have to follow. In other words, fewer rules equals more profits for its CEO. There was also an article that suggested the Veterans Administration may have steered contracts worth millions to special friends.

The Twisted Thinking: Thinking critically, as instructed by the Common Core standards, I understand that there may be some connections and some cause-effect relationships between all of these seemingly isolated reports. Could capitalism on steroids and income inequality be related to high poverty levels? Could fraud and corruption in government also be related in some way to how the 1 percent continues to get richer than all the rest of us? [Making the case against Common Core?]

The Solution: Here’s a novel idea! What if we closed loopholes for huge corporations and asked the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes? What if big companies started to put people ahead of profits? What if the wealthy could no longer make huge donations that corrupt our politicians? Just daydreaming here, but what if the middle class united, organized and demanded change? One simple thing we can do is vote only for leaders who want to fix America’s problems in the next election. 

The Analysis: This is an actual letter to the editor in my local paper. It took three paragraphs for the writer to proffer the old worn out mantra of the left.  His claim of critical thinking is clever by half, the wrong half.

• There are not "loop holes" all individuals and corporations are compelled to follow the tax code or pay the consequences.  In short, what corporations are doing is legal according to the tax law.
• Compare any country that is ravaged by poverty.  They have a system other than capitalism.  They have no liberty, freedom or choice.
• The middle class voting for a leader that puts America first has been the goal since our founding.  However, we have people that continue to vote for career politicians that are well known for putting themselves first. Ask yourself why millions of people voted for Obama twice. Notice the writer did not raise that question!

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AT RISK

INTEGRITY OF OHIO ELECTIONS AT RISK

MARY SIEGEL 

Guest columnist 

Mary Siegel is co-founder and co-leader of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project.


As one of the leaders of Ohio Voter Integrity Project, a nonpartisan voter education and research organization, I disagree with most of the op-ed “Ohio should focus on better voter access” (March 15). But author Sean Wright’s underestimation of the impact of non-citizens voting in our elections is particularly disturbing in light of President Obama’s recent Executive Actions on Immigration.

To date Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, in coordination with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), has discovered 453 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio. Although this number may seem “miniscule,” it can still affect the outcome of our elections, especially at the local level.

Results from the Ohio November 2013 and May 2014 elections revealed that 63 races tied or were decided by just one vote. This demonstrates that every vote has the potential to determine the outcome of any race or ballot issue.

I believe most people would agree that every case of voter suppression is harmful and should be investigated. Since illegal non-citizen votes negate or suppress the votes of legitimate citizens, non-citizen voting is actually voter suppression and should be considered as damaging as any other form of voter suppression.

Instead, the op-ed minimizes the issue by disregarding the 453 cases as “Republicans’ alarmist” propaganda.

What Wright fails to mention is that 5 million potential new cases of non-citizen voter fraud are waiting at America’s doorstep. President Obama’s 2015 Immigration Order, granting Social Security numbers to approximately 5 million new legally present non-citizens, is the largest single threat to the integrity of today’s elections. While the BMV reports citizenship status to the Secretary of State’s Office based on drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, citizenship information related to Social Security numbers is held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is not shared with the 50 states. Some states are now trying to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. But for most states, including Ohio, the verification of U.S. citizenship through a Social Security number is not possible.

In response to the dangers of this “expanding loophole,” Husted sent a letter to Obama in January asking for the states to receive access to the names, date of birth and last four digits of Social Security numbers for all non-citizens who receive a Social Security number. On Feb. 12, Husted, along with the secretaries of state from Maine and Kansas, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, reiterating the threat of the President’s Executive Actions on the integrity of state and federal elections. As of today, Obama has not responded to Husted’s request. Federal law mandates that any person who registers to vote must be a U.S. citizen. Providing a name, address, date of birth and citizenship information is neither a “trick” question nor racially biased. Every U.S. citizen regardless of race, religion or political affiliation should be alarmed at the potential for non-citizens to register and vote in our elections without being detected by the system.

If our federal government refuses to support Ohio and all states in their verification of citizenship on voter applications, then our government is promoting voter fraud and destroying our electoral freedoms.

No peace in our time - Understanding Netanyahu

No peace in our time

by Charles Krauthammer

Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state – with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted – only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 – three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership – from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas – has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

That authoritarian order is gone. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.

In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the U.S. had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gadhafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”

From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?

There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gadhafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the last five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas.

With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland – just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas.

Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.

Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places.

Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the U.S., Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium – now effectively rendered null?

Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail.

I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said in explaining – and softening – on Thursday his no-Palestinian-state statement.

In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Yesterday’s election in Israel is a healthy reminder that the vote of the people matters. It is also a useful reminder that campaigns can make a big difference.

Prime Minister Netanyahu focused his campaign on national security. He argued that Israel’s very survival is at stake. His opponents wanted to emphasize the economy.

Forced to choose between their pocketbook and their lives, a large number of Israelis chose national security.

The bias of the media in this campaign was obvious and deeply anti-Netanyahu. Before Election Day, there were predictions that Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would only win 21 seats. Then the media decided based on exit polls that the race would be a tie with 24 seats for Likud and 24 for the left.

My guess is that media hostility to Netanyahu caused a significant number of those polled to refuse to admit they voted for him.

In the real results, it seems Likud won 30 seats for a surprisingly big gain in the complex world of Israeli politics. As the New York Post reported, “Not only was that shockingly good for Likud, it was a far stronger showing than in the last election.”

If Netanyahu was the biggest winner of the day, Speaker John Boehner may have been the second biggest winner. His decision to invite the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint meeting of Congress created a close tie with the newly reelected Israeli leader.

President Obama publicly expressed disdain for Netanyahu and sent political operatives (not to mention, according to some allegations, taxpayer money) to defeat Likud. He lost.

This outcome is a good reminder that elections matter. The real vote was very different from the pre-election analysis which was off by 45% in the number of seats won. It was also “a far cry from the virtual dead heat that television exit polls had reported Tuesday evening,” as the Jerusalem Post put it.

Sometimes leaders have to make powerful, clear, emotional arguments buttressed by compelling and understandable facts. Something that Obama and the Democrats cannot do.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."

This outcome has to worry Hillary Clinton, who saw Barack Obama win the 2007-2008 primary campaign even though she was far-and-away the frontrunner, in part because she had no argument to make. She seems to have the same problem today.

Republicans should take heart that a campaign that focuses on making an important fact based argument can lead to a good election outcome. 

Climate change really a ruse for socialist agenda

Climate change really a ruse for socialist agenda

by Walter E. Williams

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about. It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years.”

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades.

Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda.

Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more antiscientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.