Exposed: An Errant Environmental Encyclical Courtesy Of Pope Francis

The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.

“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”

The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).

All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.

One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]

However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.

Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]

Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.

Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.

Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.

Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.

We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.

As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years.

None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.

Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.

Hundreds of millions get horribly sick–and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.

Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.

Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?

We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.

No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.

The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.

But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.

Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.

Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.

It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Star Model Just Dropped A One-Sentence Body Slam On NYC Mayor’s Insane Liberal Proposal

Several celebrities, including one of America’s most admired supermodels, have taken to social media to blast New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, over his attempts to regulate ride-hailing company Uber and other taxi services.

The de Blasio administration proposed legislation that would cap additional licenses for Uber drivers and other taxis, according to CNN Money. “Uber is a multibillion dollar corporation, and they’re acting like one,” de Blasio said. “They’re looking out for their corporate bottom line.” The outlet also pointed out that de Blasio reportedly received hundreds of thousands of dollars from New York’s taxi medallion industry during his 2013 mayoral campaign.

Uber has responded by flooding the Big Apple’s media market with ads featuring people who purport to be Uber drivers – all minorities – contending they would be disenfranchised if the proposed regulations become law. “Millionaire medallion owners don’t need help. People like us do,” said a man identified as an Uber driver in an ad. The ad is currently being run in the New York area.

Uber’s app also features a tab in the New York market that demonstrates how long passengers would have to wait for a ride if the regulations are passed:

Uber and its drivers are not the only ones upset. Kate Upton, Ashton Kutcher, and Neil Patrick Harris have all expressed their dismay toward de Blasio for his proposal:

The de Blasio administration has agreed to back off on its proposal “for now.” The New York Times gives further details.

The agreement brings a temporary end to a fractious struggle that had consumed City Hall for several days, and inundated parts of the city with mailers, phone calls, advertisements and even celebrity endorsements.

Under the agreement, according to three people familiar with the agreement, the city will conduct a four-month study on the effect of Uber and other for-hire vehicle operators on the city’s traffic and environment.

Do you support Uber? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Keep Your Hands Off My Raisins: Court Invalidates Antiquated Raisin Grab

Laura and Marvin Horne are raisin farmers. Early one morning in 2002, a truck appeared at their business–and the drivers demanded a whopping 47 percent of their raisin crop. The truck was sent by the federal government, and those demanding Horne’s raisin crop claimed to be operating under a “marketing order” first put in place in 1937 as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to shore up agricultural prices. Amazingly, this antiquated scheme lasted for over 65 years—well past the agricultural crisis of the Great Depression.

By 2002, the Hornes had endured enough of these raisin grabs. They refused to turn over what amounted to nearly half of their crop. The federal government assessed a fine of $480,000 for the missing raisins and another $200,000 in civil penalties against the Hornes. The Hornes fought the government through the courts and finally landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 allowed the secretary of agriculture to issue marketing orders to stabilize market prices for certain agricultural products, including raisins. Under this order, raisin producers could be forced to relinquish a portion of what they produced to the government without any compensation. The percentage of the crops that had to be relinquished in a given year was determined by the Raisin Administrative Committee. The plan was that the government would keep these reserve raisins off the domestic market—a reduction in supply—to help to shore up prices. This system was originally part of the New Deal aimed at aiding farmers whose agricultural products had fallen steeply in price. Unfortunately, as with most government programs, it remained in effect despite the passing of the immediate economic emergency which spawned it.

In a recent decision, Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority agreed with the Hornes. Roberts stated that the Fifth Amendment requires that property cannot be taken by the government for public use without the original owner being properly compensated. Part of the Fifth Amendment, often dubbed the “takings clause,” has been interpreted to mean that when the government takes a private citizen’s property for a public purpose—such as, for example, for the building of a road—the owner must be paid a reasonable amount for the seized property. Here, even though the property (raisins) could be regarded as having been taken for a public use—the stabilizing of agricultural prices during an economic crisis—there was virtually no compensation being paid to raisin growers like the Hornes.

In a fitting tribute to the 800th anniversary of the great document of English liberties—Magna Carta—Roberts traced the origins of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause to that charter and concluded that “the reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee. The Committee disposes of what become its raisins as it wishes, to promote the purposes of the raisin marketing order.”

The government unsuccessfully argued that the takings clause did not apply to personal property, but the court roundly rejected that contention. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture claimed that if the government successfully sold the seized raisins as exports, for example, growers like the Hornes might receive a residual payment which would amount to compensation. Again, the court said that the mere possibility of a residual payment was not equivalent to compensation. It was simply too contingent and indeterminate.

Other U.S. citizens are still subjected to a bevy of similar antiquated, unnecessary regulations. They should make ample use of the court’s holding here to challenge these governmental restraints and reintroduce the fresh air of freedom into markets for goods and services.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

They Wanted To Get A Nice Liberal Answer Out Of Her – Then They Realized She’s Miss Texas

Before going on to be named first runner-up in the 2015 Miss USA Pageant, Miss Texas, Ylianna Guerra, slipped in an unabashedly pro-capitalist answer to a judge’s question. Focusing on the hot-button issue of income inequality, one judge asked Guerra for her opinion on the disproportionately high wages top executives earn compared to their employees.

Asked whether she supported “boundaries” on these earnings, the contestant was unequivocal.

Capture

“If you work hard enough,” she said, “you can attain anything. This is the land of opportunity; and CEOs, I believe they work hard enough for their money, so I believe they should be able to attain whatever it is they’re working for.”

The answer resonated with many across social media, with one Twitter user affirming that highly paid executives “obviously worked hard to get there” and have earned their compensation.

Some critics, however, agreed with another Twitter comment suggesting that, under Guerra’s definition, women and minorities “dont [sic] [work] as hard as middle aged white men” because there are not as many in top-level positions.

One such wealthy executive, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, was notably absent from the pageant he co-owns. After receiving significant backlash over his recent comments regarding illegal immigration, both NBC and Univision severed ties with Trump and refused to broadcast his pageants.

The event aired on the Reelz network instead, though Trump was reportedly not in attendance and there was no mention of him during the pageant.

Should executive salaries be artificially capped at a certain level? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why America Is Attracted To Donald Trump

Ok, ok, let us ALL be clear here: we at Louder with Crowder have in NO WAY had a change of heart regarding our position on newly announced Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. We made our position MORE than abundantly clear yesterday when we both picked apart his speech and vetted his “conservatism”. Got it? Got it.

What we DO find interesting is the incredible amount of backlash we felt in response to both of those pieces. Just peek through the comments section on the aforementioned articles to see for yourself! The hilarity that so many people take Trump seriously aside, it begs the question “why?” It’s clear that he hit some notes that really spoke to some Americans, and that itself is worth dissecting.

That said, we give you the top 4 things America finds attractive about Donald Trump.

  1. Donald Trump clearly has business sense, or at least more so than any other candidate in this election. Here’s a man who has seen more than his share of successes and failures.  He knows what makes capitalism work and what makes it fail. Even though he’s not a true free enterpriser (he does abuse the courts and take advantage of government favoritism as it relates to business), it’ll be hard for the career politicians to debate him on economics.
  1. When Donald Trump has ideas, he finds ways to make them work. He’s not necessarily the most honest guy, but he isn’t inherently dishonest either in that he doesn’t promise things he cannot deliver. When Trump says he’ll do things, he typically does them. Why? His pursuit of excellence. Sure, he’s an egomaniac. But he possesses a confidence that many Americans find refreshing in a field of GOP lambs.
  1. Donald Trump raises the level of play for the rest of the candidates. At the very least, in Donald Trump’s brazen attempt to provide bluntness over eloquence, it allows for a dialogue that might otherwise not take place. Trump’s not afraid to poke his finger in his opponent’s chest, and that opens up the field for all other Republicans alike.
  2. Donald Trump believes in and loves America. We’ve been tied to the international whipping post too long. The current administration has apologized for America to every race, creed, nationality, gender, and orientation on the planet. Yet we have shamefully allowed ourselves to become THE worldwide villain on the cosmic wanted posters, despite our giving more resources globally to improve life than any other nation. Our enemies see attempts to appease them with self-deprecation as weakness. They have and will exploit that weakness to defeat us. Ronald Reagan once said that as a nation: “It is good to be liked, but it’s much better to be respected.” Donald Trump is unapologetic about respecting America and not caving to other movements, regimes, or nations. He goes a little far in his rhetoric, but I will give credit where it’s due here.

Donald Trump isn’t the right candidate. There are far too many things that make him NOT the right guy. However, he is undeniably positive about America and her place in the worldwide community. That kind of patriotism and pride is contagious – and is sorely needed – if we’re to return to the kind of leadership that made America the greatest nation in the world. He may not be the right man for the job, but I certainly think he may help pave the way for someone who is.

Your thoughts? Sound off below.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth