Monday, March 26, 2007

why hasn't algore thought of this?

This is a very insightful column by Jonah Goldberg concerning the Algore Travelin' Salvation Show, and it brings up a number of very good points about how transparently false his new-fangled theology is. After I finished reading it, I began to look at this global warming scam in a whole new way. Read the following quote from Goldberg:

Gore says global warming is "a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth." It's graver than any war. He compares it to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.
But here's the thing. If there were an asteroid barreling toward earth, we wouldn't be talking about changing our lifestyles, nor would we be preaching about reducing, reusing and recycling. We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing. But Gore doesn't want to explore geo-engineering (whereby, for example, we'd add sulfate aerosols or other substances to the atmosphere to mitigate global warming). Why? Because solving the problem isn't really the point. As Gore makes it clear in his book, "Earth in the Balance," he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems.

This whole global warming thing really gives us the opportunity to examine the stark differences between conservatives and liberals, and why godless, socialist liberalism is so horribly damaging to America.

Let's pretend for a moment that global warming was true, and that Earth really was in danger of a major catastrophe because of it. The conservative would certainly look to private entities for technological solutions to the warming. I don't know about the sulfate aeresol example that Goldberg used, but certainly, America's scientific and technological communities could come up with a solution. That solution would be worth billions of dollars to whoever pioneered it, and all the world would benefit. That's capitalism, entrepreneurialism, and conservatism all rolled into one. If you disagree, that's OK. You don't have to participate, but the opportunity is there for those who do.

Liberalism, however, takes a different approach. Godless, socialist liberalism first lies about the severity of global warming, in order to scare everybody. Scared people are easier to manipulate. Next, representatives of godless, socialist liberalism step forward to tell "we the people" that the whole problem is our fault. We are too selfish, too wasteful, and uncompassionate. Next, the liberal commentators tell us that, if we do just exactly as they command, we can redeem ourselves and become better, more compassionate, less guilty people. All we have to do is to complete change our way of life and give more of our money to the liberal cause so that real change can happen. We stop using so much energy and we switch light bulbs and we buy "carbon offsets" and we agree to give up our national sovereignty to the United Nations in order to be better stewards of the earth. Anyone who disagrees is threatened and bullied and, eventually, beaten into submission by liberal government mandates. Resistance is not an option.

Do you see the difference? The conservative approach actually works, it gives we the people more power and more opportunities, and it helps the economy. The liberal approach strips us of our unalienable rights and our hard earned money, it's fascist in nature, and, on top of all that, it has no shot at being successful. I can think of no greater reason to reject the insanity of the left.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter