Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Government deception is getting old PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

Please allow me to respond to Terrance Moe’s letter from last week, “Blueways System is just a baby step,” which was a response to mine several weeks prior, “Beware of government’s generalizations.”

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Moe continued the conversation on the beginnings and future vision of today’s environmental movement (which opponents largely view as government oppression and elitism), however, there were inaccuracies that must be addressed so that citizens have the proper materials to develop solid convictions of the world around them, especially at this unprecedented time when nothing ever turns out to be as advertised.

As Mr. Moe noted, the blockbuster book, “Silent Spring,” created awareness of the bio-accumulation of DDT through the food chain, environmental impact, decline of birds of prey, cancer and genetic damage. But to those emotionally invested in Rachel Carson’s heart-tugging story line, all of the aforementioned claims have since been proven substantially false making the benefits of DDT far outweigh any risks, particularly when the life-saving chemical is employed in a judicious manner.

Unfortunately, space limits a detailed rebuttal, so the following quotes will suffice in painting a clear picture of what many believe is the impetus behind DDT restrictions. For example, former Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey stated in 1971 that his organization “wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control.”

In a similar population-control mind set, Alexander King, the director of the global think tank Club of Rome, complained in 1990, “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”

And,?Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist Charles Wurster enthusiastically told the Seattle Times, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.”

Then, while making a collectivist case for limiting American’s sacred and interconnected unalienable rights of liberty and property, Mr. Moe attempted to discredit my warning about the National Blueways System and its heavy-handed edict. In effect Mr. Moe rationalizes that government isn’t concealing any unscrupulous motives, because according to official documents, participation is “entirely voluntary and locally driven” and it involves no “changes in private property or water rights.”

Yet, not only do we have a glaring track record of similar rhetoric and corresponding broken promises coming out of the Obama administration on a number of other issues, but Barack Obama when peddling ObamaCare, fallaciously said, “If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor,” and the health-care law will “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

That said, a reference cited in my initial letter was an official report from a recent House Natural Resources Subcommittee field hearing in Missouri, titled “Stopping Federal Land and Water Grabs: Protecting Property Rights from Washington, D.C. Edicts.” The hearing examined the burdens of the National Blueways Order which imposes a federal watershed designation process with questionable legal authorities.

According to Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock of California, “The principle focus of today’s hearing is the fever-dream of leftist environmental groups in conjunction with the Interior Department to declare vast watersheds as National Blueways. As we review Obama Administration documents, we discover that the so-called rewards for the White River Blueway included imposing buffer zones, seizing almost 300,000 acres of land, forcing conservation plans on the region’s farms, and banning human activity from flood plains.”

Government deception is getting old.

For eye-opening information, please search online: “Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths,” and “DDT Ban Breeds Death.”

Frank Gabl

Prospect Heights, Ill.,

and Eagle River

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:01 PM
 

Comments  

 
-15 #152 Frank Gabl 2013-10-02 16:14
Tim,

Now I think you're messing with me because you know that poor people living In huts In Africa aren't really concerned about individual liberty when they're just trying to stay alive.

Besides, they don't spray whole areas which is made known in the Stossel segment.

I think I've had enough about DDT for now, anyways.
Quote
 
 
-8 #151 2013-10-02 13:01
Well that is all well and good, but individual choice is being removed.

In my opinion, spraying entire areas and forcing the people to deal with it is no different than govermnent sponsored "healthcare". You are removing many choices all to benefit a few.
Quote
 
 
-19 #150 Frank Gabl 2013-10-01 23:01
Tim,

This is an addition to my other post and was my impetus for learning the truth about DDT.

The guest in Stossel's segment is Richard Tren, Director of Africa Fighting Malaria and a Research Fellow of the Environment at IEA.

Tren's groundbreaking book which is mentioned in the segment has really turned the tide on decades of myths, although for obvious reasons, the general media shut it down.

I think you'll really like this video and if you look really close I'm one of the kids getting sprayed! (just kidding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwqandRTSQ

And then checkout these pictures I found.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ddt+spraying+in+chicago&rlz=1T4TSNF_enUS420US420&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z25LUrW3GufWyQG5joGAAg&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=589&dpr=1
Quote
 
 
-20 #149 Frank Gabl 2013-10-01 18:37
Tim,

In "developing" countries where the 800, 000 or so deaths occur every year, the chemicals used nowadays, Malathion and DDT, are only sprayed on the interior surfaces (IRS - Interior Residual Spraying) where the people would most likely die without it. I don't think they have any concern other than staying alive!

And even though the days of spraying everything in sight like when I was a kid are over, If West Nile or bedbugs explode much further, you never know.
Quote
 
 
+9 #148 2013-10-01 16:22
Frank, you just don't get it. My point isn't about "some, plenty, etc", it's that there are known issues with the use of DDT. It's THAT simple and even Tim stated that. You on the other hand want to say there isn't. There is ZERO reasons to use it in this country which was what your original rant was about, you now.....big bad guberment, yada, yada, yada. You've say you never said it was 100% safe yet posted an article about someone who handled it extensively and never got sick. What was the point of that if you weren't saying it was safe? Idealism? How idealistic is it for you to believe that we MAY save lives despite long term effects? That's a slippery slope Frank. This entire tirade of yours started with your typical rant about Govt and you spun it from there in usual fashion. As I said, you could take a letter about a BBQ and turn it into something about the Govt. Staying on the original topic, How is banning the use in the U.S. a problem?
Quote
 
 
-8 #147 2013-10-01 13:10
Frank,

While I can understand your point regarding the number of lives saved using DDT as an insecticide, don't you still think that it is wrong to use it with respect to the rights of others?

The reason I ask this, is because it is the people in power making the decision and it removes away individual rights. To me it is no different than the health care companies forcing employees to recieve flu shots. If you spray an area with DDT to kill mosquitoes, you also are spraying the people. While some might not care, are indifferent, or whatever, I am sure that there would be some that do not like it.

So in essence, you are attacking the individual liberties of the people subjected to it.
Quote
 
 
-19 #146 Frank Gabl 2013-10-01 02:00
Tim,


Of course you are entirely correct that the Left couldn’t care less about reality since in their minds it’s all about idealism, as in, we can’t let those silly facts get in the way of what we’ve invested all that time and anger in.

As a matter of fact, Cal Thomas makes that point extremely well this week on the “man-made” global warming scam and the new IPCC report.

But what still makes me stop in my tracks are the elitists who believe that some negative effects of DDT trumps saving lives – especially since the 800,000 avoidable casualties every year are predominantly children under five.

I don’t know about you, but what I’ve always been told is that; other than that little detail about the 1.2 million developing lives that are exterminated every year; “it’s all about the children.” Delusional.
Quote
 
 
-19 #145 Frank Gabl 2013-10-01 01:53
John,

CHECKMATE – YOU LOSE.

“Some” is defined as “a small number.”

“Plenty” is defined as “an abundant number.”

You even just had the chutzpah after I challenged you on those meanings, to question (as if I can’t read):

“Causing some problems” is a completely different argument to you than "there's evidence to DDT's negative effects"?

JUST the simple fact that you knowingly omitted the money word “PLENTY” (your emphasis) is proof enough of one of your typical distortions!

The following are your exact words in post 127 with the upper case PLENTY your emphasis:

“My very first post stated “There's PLENTY of evidence to DDT's negative effects”

Besides; the elementary fact that you cannot prove that I’ve ever said that DDT is “100% safe” or “has no effects” like you’ve fabricated is a double down on CHECKMATE.

Better luck next time.
Quote
 
 
-18 #144 Frank Gabl 2013-10-01 01:49
John,

CHECKMATE – YOU LOSE.

After my lengthy anatomy of your latest fabrication about what you said I labeled Saul Alinsky as - the following is what you responded when I just said: “I'm still waiting for you to quote me using "Communist", communist" "Communist sympathizer" or "communist sympathizer" directly referring to Alinsky”

And you just stated: “Once again Frank the definition of a "fellow traveler" is someone who "sympathizes with a movement" of which you said Alinsky was a fellow traveler (sympathizer) with communists.”

By not producing a quote of mine, you just confirmed that I never uttered any of those words directly referring to Saul Alinsky like you fabricated over and over again.

Better luck next time.
Quote
 
 
+12 #143 2013-09-30 17:40
Frank, your spin job won't work. You are merely attempting to change what I mean, nothing more. Label me whatever you wish, I don't care. We do know you "align yourself" with the fringe teaparty so whatever you think I am is nothing compared to you. "Causing some problems" is a completely different argument to you than "there's evidence to DDT's negative effects"? Once again Frank the definition of a "fellow traveler" is someone who "sympathizes with a movement" of which you said Alinsky was a fellow traveler (sympathizer) with communists. Keep trying.....
Quote
 
 
-20 #142 Frank Gabl 2013-09-30 16:05
Tim,

You're point wasn't lost. It's just that these debates with John always end up this way because he has always been incapable of conducting a responsible and honest debate without resorting to distortions, mischaracteriza tions and fabrications to the point that I not taking it any longer. It's just as simple as that.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh