Comments ?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21820

Green Activists Hurt the World's Poor: An Interview with Paul Driessen
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: September 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Driessen is a warrior on the front lines of the battle against Third World poverty and disease.

As a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Driessen dedicates himself to identifying and eliminating the obstacles that keep people in underdeveloped countries from breaking through the abject poverty barrier.

All too often, Driessen has discovered, the very environmental activist groups that claim to care so much about people in underdeveloped countries are the ones keeping them down.

James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News, caught up with Driessen for a discussion of Third World nations and the environment.

Taylor: You have been one of the leaders in presenting affluent Americans with information about how environmental extremists are impoverishing and imperiling the lives of the world's poorest people. What are the most significant threats the world's poor face from extremists?

Driessen: I think malaria is probably the biggest threat. There has been tremendous opposition among environmental activists regarding DDT and insecticides. The extremists focus on phony, speculative crises regarding insecticides, yet ignore the extreme and very real negative toll that so-called enlightened environmental policies are imposing on the poor people of the world.

Another threat to the world's poor are the proffered "solutions" to global warming, where alarmists use speculative scenarios cranked out on computers to justify policies that will cause tremendous harm to the world's poor.

People in underdeveloped nations desperately need energy, yet the alarmists want to keep it away from them. As a result, people in Third World nations frequently burn dung indoors for their cooking and heating requirements, and will continue to do so until the activists stop opposing fossil fuel use and hydroelectric dams.

Environmental activists frequently call for the installation of small solar panels or a couple of wind turbines in each local village, but these are wholly inadequate sources of power. These cannot give birth to a modern society.

The activists are even using global warming now to justify opposition to shipping food from Africa to Europe, arguing that transportation entails burning too many fossil fuels. This is trade protectionism under environmental garb.

Time and again, despite the rhetoric, Africans' interests are always dead last on the totem poll of environmental activist priorities. A lack of concern for the Third World poor is being masked by high-minded environmental slogans.

Other threats from environmental activists include opposition to mining, foreign corporate investment, and biotechnology.

In all of these issues, environmental activists oppose Third World rights to self-determination and prevent Africans from developing a middle-income consumer society like that of the Western world. Unfortunately, the stifling of a middle-income consumer society is not the inadvertent result of environmental activist policies, but quite often the desired result.


Taylor: Malaria is running rampant throughout much of Africa and other parts of the Third World. What is the scope of the malaria problem?

Driessen: The malaria problem has been worsening for decades under politically correct schemes that emphasize inadequate "solutions" such as bed nets, education, and treatment rather than prevention. Today in developing nations, half a billion people still get malaria every year. One out of three people who contract malaria die from it--mostly kids.

In recent years, we are seeing signs that this might finally begin to change. The United States is participating with many international groups to provide DDT and insecticides as effective weapons in the battle against malaria.


Taylor: After DDT eliminated malaria in the United States in the mid-twentieth century, environmental activists succeeded in banning it. What has real-world experience told us about the importance of DDT in fighting malaria?

Driessen: In the United States and Europe, DDT got rid of malaria. It is as simple as that. It was the knockout blow that eliminated a substantial human health problem. But today in developing nations, half a billion people still get malaria every year, yet DDT has been banned due to alleged human health fears.

What human health risks can exceed hundreds of millions of people contracting malaria every year? What can justify this horrendous annual death toll?

Developing nations merely seek the right to spray a small amount of DDT inside their homes once or twice a year to keep malarial mosquitoes out, but are being pressured not to.


Taylor: What are the environmental risks of DDT spraying?

Driessen: It is important to note that DDT functions not so much as an insecticide as a long-lasting repellant. You need only spray the huts once or twice a year and the mosquitoes will not enter. The few that enter will leave or die almost immediately. Limited indoor spraying is all people need.

There really is no substitute for this--nothing. How can anyone argue the harms of such limited indoor spraying outweigh the deaths of more than 100 million people per year?


Taylor: Are there any other effects that the DDT ban has on developing nations, in addition to the death toll?

Driessen: The reality of malaria is that hundreds of millions of people in Third World nations, and in Africa especially, spend much of the year sick, battling the disease. They can't go to work. They spend much of their time in hospitals. They spend a great deal of money paying for medical care.

So many people die from malaria, and so many more suffer the pains of the illness and the poverty that it brings.


Taylor: Any final thoughts?

Driessen: I would just like to make people aware that the Congress of Racial Equality and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow work so very hard to make a positive difference in people's lives. As opposed to the environmental activists who sit in their offices opposing everything, we are out there on a person-to-person and village-to-village basis doing everything we can to fight disease and poverty.

Posted by Les Riley at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments

Pro-War conservatives & neo-conservatives -- looking for a man on a white horse -- have been salivating in hopes of a Fred Thompson run for the Presidency.

He skipped the debates to avoid tough questions, but in the days of the internet, this doesn't work quite as well.

The "Conservatives against Fred Thompson" blog does a good job of proving why no conservative Christian should support Fred Thompson for Pres.
( I'm afraid many probably will anyway; after all, he's better than Hillary)

http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/
There are proofs that Fred is pro-choice, pro-big government, and on the wrong side on MANY issues that conservatives care about

For instance, this piece that shows Thompson's anti-gun voting record in the Senate :

http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/

Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record

The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily verified.
Summary:

1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )
On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage
On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.

3. Taggants in gunpowder
On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment — which Thompson voted for– would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.

4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.

5. Free Speech restrictions
On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.

6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.

7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment
On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.

8. Anti-gun Surgeon General
Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.

9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill
On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.

10. Young adult gun ban
The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.

11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy
On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)
By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)
This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

Posted by Les Riley at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments