World Health Organisation: Bacon As Bad As Asbestos, Tobacco, Plutonium

Actually that’s a lie. It’s not remotely spooky or coincidental that I was eating bacon when I read this because I always eat bacon at breakfast with my newspaper.

The reason I always eat bacon at breakfast, every day, without fail, is because bacon tastes delicious. It’s one of the three main reasons God invented the pig (the others being ham and sausage, obviously). I like it so much that sometimes I wonder whether I should become a vegetarian, just so that I can experience that incredible thing all well-adjusted vegetarians go through whereby they realise just how joyless and pointless being a vegetarian is and are seized by an insanely powerful urge to eat a bacon sandwich. And then they do eat a bacon sandwich and tears stream from their eyes and celestial choirs sing the Hallelujah chorus and the interior of their mouth explodes in a gustatory orgasm and they vow never to return to the dark side again. (Cara Delevinge will experience something similar, probably, when she finally remembers that she isn’t actually a lesbian).

But now the World Health Organisation’s International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC) is telling me I shouldn’t eat bacon because it will increase my risk of getting cancer.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Enron Environmentalism: The Carbon Credits Scam Pumps Millions of Tonnes More Greenhouse Gases into the Atmosphere

As well as pumping much as 600 million tonnes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the carbon credits scheme has been abused by countries like Russia and the Ukraine which have used them as a money making scam.

Vladyslav Zhezherin, one of the co-authors of the study by the Stockholm Environment Institute says:

“This was like printing money.”

Another co-author Anja Kollmuss has told BBC News.

“We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud], we didn’t expect such a large number.”

“What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn’t have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits.”

To which the two obvious questions are:

Have any of these people actually been to Russia or the Ukraine?


This stuff that these greenies have been smoking sounds totally amazing. How do we go about getting some?

The corruption they describe is by no means a recent thing. It dates back to Enron whose entire business model was based on dodgy carbon credits, which it used not to save the planet but to close down its rivals in the coal industry.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

How Obama’s Green Crony Capitalism Is Reducing the US to a Banana Republic

“They are going to try to dirty him up,” said Court, a Steyer ally. “He is personally committed on a moral level to preventing a 4-degree temperature change that is irreversible, and he has $3 billion to pursue his passion.”

I have a couple of problems with this imaginative thesis, presumably advanced with Steyer’s blessing in order to distract from unhelpful stories like this one about  his latest egregious eco-fail in California.

1. How would it be possible, even with the combined resources of Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell, Petrobras and whoever else, to cause more reputational damage to Tom Steyer than he has already achieved through his own magisterial efforts?

Sure he must have been clever or cunning sometime to have made at all that money for himself. But his more recent career, ever since deciding his new job was to save the world from ManBearPig, has been a succession of humiliating failures.

His NextGen SuperPac was a massive flop.

In Florida, it dispatched more than 500 staffers and volunteers to criticize Governor Rick Scott’s energy policies and used a “Noah’s ark” to show the threat of rising ocean levels. Scott still won re-election.

So was his Proposition 39 in California which, at yet further cost to the taxpayer, was supposed to have created 11,000 new “green jobs” a year. In fact the true figure has been closer to 600 green jobs a year, each costing $175,000 – and quite likely killing many more real jobs than the fake ones it created.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

RIP Stefan the Stork – One of 30 Million Birds Killed by Wind Farms Every Year

Though I’ve given him a name – Stefan – I think we can safely predict that his ugly and entirely unnecessary demise won’t generate nearly the same level of public outrage as did Cecil the Lion‘s. Or even Finsly the Tiger Shark’s.

That’s because, as Stalin might have put it, the killing of one mammal by a white, middle-class male is a tragedy. But the massacre of millions of birds (and bats) every year by greenies who say they’re doing it because they really care about the environment is a statistic.

Just how many of the world’s avian fauna are killed every year by bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes?

If you believe the conservation group Save The Eagles International, then the annual global death toll is jaw-dropping.

But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.

But we’re unlikely ever to get an accurate figure because the wind industry takes such pains to cover up this embarrassing data. For example, last year, PacificCorp – an energy company which operates at least 13 wind energy facilities in three US states – sued the US Interior Department to prevent it releasing to the media the figures on how many birds have been found dead at its facilities.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

No, Stephen Hawking, Science Doesn’t Need Any Help from The European Union


Stephen Hawking and 150 other distinguished scientists – all fellows of the Royal Society – have written a letter to the (London) Times saying that if Britain leaves the European Union it would be a “disaster for UK science.”

No it wouldn’t.

Only 3 per cent of science R & D funding in Britain comes from the European Union. And it’s not as though we should be grateful for this sop: not when you consider that Britain puts far more into the EU than it gets back in return. If we were out, we could decide for ourselves how much we want to spend on science – and on which projects – rather than having a bunch of incompetent foreigners decide for us.

When I say “a bunch of incompetent foreigners” I mean just that. Look at the example of the EU’s flagship GPS project in which 28 states have come together in peace and unity and utter pointlessness to spunk Euros 13 billion of taxpayers’ money on a satellite navigation programme that no one actually needs any more because there’s a perfectly good one available already.

Is that the kind of science project we’d tragically miss out on if Britain were to quit the EU? Thirteen years delayed, three times overbudget and the space age equivalent of a chocolate ashtray? If so, I can’t say I’m going to be weeping too many bitter tears for the scientists we would have paid for to do that particular job.

Oh but what about CERN? Imagine! If it hadn’t been for the EU we might never have discovered the Higgs Boson…

Bollocks we wouldn’t have done.

Another of the myths being put about is that leaving the political structures of the EU will affect our participation in the CERN project – the European Organisation for Nuclear Research and home of the Large Hadron Collider. This is simply not true. CERN is an international collaboration of many countries, including many non-EU nations. The UK were founding members of the project back in 1954, and are currently CERN’s third largest contributor. The official status of the EU in respect to CERN is that of an OBSERVER, along with UNESCO, Russia, India, Japan and the USA.

Freedom of movement for scientists then. Think of all the brilliant researchers who’d be denied entry to Britain…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

‘Compassionate Conservatism’ Is the Devil’s Urine

Oh great. A new manifesto arguing for “compassionate conservatism.” Only this time, the authors have hit on the ingenious variant “The Good Right.”

I’d love to tell Tim Montgomerie and Stephan Shakespeare exactly what I think of their limp-wristed apologia for precisely the kind of watered-down, damp-dishcloth faux-conservatism that has driven so many natural conservatives into the bosom of UKIP. But I won’t, obviously, because it will give them far too much masochistic pleasure.

So let me just quibble, gently, with one of the numerous bits I particularly hate.

It’s where they claim that “Government is Not the Enemy.”

Now I agree that, theoretically speaking, this is a delightfully warm and cozy affirmatory statement of kitten-stroking caringness.

To help us into the right frame of mind, they treat us to some heart-warming examples of just the kind of thing “Government” does to make all the horrid things go away.

If you are someone who is desperate for a roof over your head after a flood, hurricane or forest fire has destroyed your home or neighbourhood you are very grateful for help from the government.

If you are out of work and your relatives are too stretched to sustain you and your family you depend upon that government welfare cheque.

If drug gangs are outside your kids’ schools every morning and afternoon you are very grateful for government help.

All of which, of course, people on what they implicitly suggest is the “Bad Right” would like to do away with. Yes that’s right, Timmy. People who, a la Ronald Reagan, argue that “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem,” just want to crush the poor and oppressed under their jackboots and are so doctrinaire – no really, I’ve heard this argument being advanced, in a debate on libertarianism, by the Guardian’s Chief Political Columnist – that their idea of a perfect state is the bracingly government-free entity that is Somalia.

And there was I thinking that one of the key facets of conservatism is that it is a practical and honest creed. It’s not about airy-fairy theories about what might work if only we closed our eyes tight enough and said “I believe in Tinkerbell.” It’s about what actually does work in the real world, as demonstrated by hard evidence.

So let me give a few examples of government in action and invite Tim Montgomerie to explain exactly how they have made our world a better place.

1. Compulsory skimmed milk in schools.

In the last few months, successive reports have demonstrated that full fat milk is much better for you than skimmed.

So guess what the Department of Education’s latest “free school milk requirements” introduced last month tell us. Yes, that’s right: “You may only offer lower-fat milk (not more than 1.8 per cent fat content, such as semi-skimmed, skimmed, or 1 per cent fat milk).”

2. The ‘liberation’ of Libya.

No, of course, it wasn’t obvious to anyone with half a brain that overthrowing Gaddafi would create more problems than it solved. (cf also Saddam Hussein; the attempted defenestration of Bashar Al Assad)

Now we learn that Libya is being transformed into another ISIS stronghold which will be used as a launchpad for terrorist operations within Europe. But hey, again, who could possibly have predicted this?

3. The Climate Change Act

Under the 2008 Climate Change Act, voted for by all but five MPs, Britain is legally committed to a “decarbonisation” programme which will hamstring the UK economy with useless projects like the proposed mega windfarm 80 miles off the Yorkshire coast, blight our seas and landscape and cost the taxpayer £734 billion. To no practical purpose whatsoever.

4. Plain packaging for cigarettes

Plain packaging is not only illiberal (and ugly and anti-capitalist) but doesn’t even achieve the one thing it was designed to do: put people off smoking. (see also: the ban on smoking in public places, introduced to prevent the dangers of “second-hand smoking” which, all serious studies show are non-existent)

But hey, the government is going to go ahead with it any way.

5. Harriet Harman’s “if she’s drunk you raped her” laws on consent – now fully endorsed and aggressively pursued under this administration by the vengefully PC Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders.

Nice one, government. You have just needlessly criminalised about 95 per cent of Britain’s male youth population.

6. The Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders Programme.

One from the Blair era, I know, but no heads have ever rolled for it, least of all the chippy, porcine incompetent in charge of it, John Prescott, who was, of course, instead elevated to the Lords.

What it did, in essence, was destroy the heart and character of many of Britain’s towns, by doing much the same that Ceausescu did in Romania: clearing and bulldozing Victorian streets (dubbed “slums” for propaganda purposes) and replacing them with modern buildings more suited to New Labour’s Year Zero. Except, oops, Labour ran out of money so a lot of the new buildings were never built; but by then the communities inhabiting the old buildings had already been broken up and moved on.

7. Rotherham et al.

Well Local Government counts as government too, doesn’t it? And it was definitely Local Government in Rotherham that allowed those Muslim rape gangs to operate with near impunity

I could go on and on. My list was never meant to be comprehensive. I’ve simply picked a few random examples of areas both great and small where government has tried (or possibly not tried) to do the right thing and made life almost immeasurably worse for everyone.

What I hope the range and variety of the idiocies cited shows is that incompetence and disastrous unintended consequences are not some unfortunate, occasional accident of government activity: they are its very essence. This is what politicians do: not just ghastly lefty Labour ones but supposed sensible “small government” (yeah right: they all go native in the end) Conservative ones. They meddle because they want to show they are making a difference – that government, as per Tim Montgomerie – is not your enemy but your friend. But they’re always too busy or politically compromised or plain thick to think it through properly. And even when they do think up clever ideas they only end up being sabotaged by Jeremy Heywood and his gang of wreckers in the Civil Service.

It’s no concidence about the only two worthwhile achievements of the Cameron administration were essentially anti-government in nature: Gove’s liberation of schools from the shackles of local government; Ian Duncan Smith’s simplification of the welfare system (which of course will have the happy side-effect of putting a lot of public sector bloatocrats out of a job).

If Montgomerie and Shakespeare’s drivel had been published after ten years of red meat Thatcherism you could just about it excuse its intellectual poverty and its wheedling desperation for change on the grounds of “well of course, the wetter fringe of the Conservative movement are going to be a bit upset.”

But it’s pretty rich, I have to say, for Monty and Shaggers to bring out this centrist tosh and try to advance it as something new and radical and different when centrist tosh is pretty much all we’ve had since David Cameron and his pals came to power and which is why this country is still in such a mess.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. ‘Compassionate’ Conservatism isn’t Conservatism
  2. A refreshing weekend of real conservatism
  3. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  4. The ideological rot that is destroying English conservatism


Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate? | James Delingpole

September 17, 2009

For opponents of President Obama, the ACORN scandal is the gift that goes on giving.

Here’s the latest episode (courtesy of BigGovernment) in which intrepid investigative reporters James O’Keefe (the one dressed as a pimp, with statutory cane and fur coat) and Hannah Giles (the worryingly convincing whore) decide to pay a visit to the offices of President Obama’s favourite left-wing “non-profit organisation” in San Bernadino, California. The ACORN representative gives helpful advice on how to run a whorehouse, how to keep under age whores in check (beat them); she enthuses about the pimp’s plans to use his funds to run for Congress, and names names of the politicians with whom she deals herself.

British readers may be somewhat puzzled by the excitement this is generating in the US blogosphere. Isn’t it just an amusing Candid-Camera-style stunt? Why should anyone care what a few rather sorry-looking people in some run down local charity offices say?

The first point is, ACORN isn’t the Salvation Army. ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now) is the largest radical group in the US with “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.”

Sol Stern gives chapter and verse on this in an excellent City Journal investigation.

“It is no surprise that ACORN preaches a New Left–inspired gospel, since it grew out of one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization. In the mid-sixties, founder George Wiley forged an army of tens of thousands of single minority mothers, whom he sent out to disrupt welfare offices through sit-ins and demonstrations demanding an end to the “oppressive” eligibility restrictions that kept down the welfare rolls. His aim: to flood the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, creating a crisis that, he believed, would force a radical restructuring of America’s unjust capitalist economy.”

“The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams. From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy. Yet far from sparking a restructuring of American capitalism, this explosion of the welfare rolls only helped to create a culture of family disintegration and dependency in inner-city neighborhoods, with rampant illegitimacy, crime, school failure, drug abuse, non-work, and poverty among a fast-growing underclass.”

The second, even more important point to remember is what this suggests about President Obama’s core values. I say “suggests” because nobody save the President, his wife, and his trusted political associates (such as his team of often highly dubious czars) seems actually to know what they are, and this is what has got at least one half of America very worried.

We know that he has worked closely with ACORN in the past and that he remains a great admirer. Stanley Kurtz showed in an investigation for National Review last year that Obama helped train ACORN staff, that some of his colleagues were involved in “direct action” like the storming of Chicago city council and that his “long service”led many members to serve as his “shock troops” in his early political campaigning. But no one has yet got to the heart of what his precise involvement was – or indeed is.

Could it be that Obama is ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate – imposing on the US the hard left welfare agenda of his sponsors, soulmates, and fellow travellers in the innocuous guise of healthcare reform, “bailouts” for the economy, and environmentalism?

Obama’s libtard supporters would no doubt dismiss such theories as “Conservative wing nuttery”.They’d probably say the same about some of the very telling questions posed by MSher1 below my last piece on this subject:

1. His father was a radical in Kenya. The best friend of his maternal grandfather, who raised him, was an avowed communist. We have no information on his mother or stepfather. Not his fault who his ancestors are, but children of communists tend to be communists. Candidate Obama certainly used the word “redistribution.” Continual references to tax cuts for 95% or some such percentage of the population, when only about 30% or some such percentage pay taxes certainly means redistribution. What are his beliefs? No one has asked.
2. Speaking of family, what has happened to his Kenyan aunt who turned out to be living illegally in the U.S. in publicly funded housing? How is it that family-man Obama didn’t know about his aunt, and millionaire Obama wasn’t financially helping her?
3. Speaking of millionaire Obama, the millions supposedly come from book sales. (We won’t bother with his obscure financial dealings with Tony Resko, who has close links with people who were lobbyists for Iraq. Neither the financial dealings or Resko’s links to Iraq have been investigated.) But let’s go back to the books. Two of them published before he was a national figure. Now how did that happen? Not so easy, as an unknown, to get books published. And, before he was a national figure, who actually bought the books? Any chance that those who had been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him got those publishing contracts and arranged purchases of copies as a way of getting money to him?
4. There has never been a discussion of why he spent a year in Pakistan as a young man, how he got there, what passport he used and what he did while there. Without details of that trip, he would never get a basic security clearance.
5. Speaking of young man Obama and those who have been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him. He started college at Occidental, a not prestigious school. By his own admission, he was a poor student there. Yet somehow he transferred to a Columbia, a very prestigious university. Lateral transfers of bad students from a small-time school to a big-time elite university doesn’t happen, unless someone influential makes it happen. Who made that happen? Who had identified Obama as worth helping so early in his life, and why? No one has ever asked.
6. Obama’s early career as a “community organizer” has never been explored. Who did he organize to do what? The press has never asked. The one thing known is that he was a lawyer to the group ACORN – oddly enough, a group very involved in registering voters and now involved in numerous scandals regarding voter and other kinds of fraud. Oh, ACORN is funded with federal funds. There was going to be a Congressional investigation of ACORN, then it was scrubbed. No explanation.

There are plenty more questions where those came from – scroll down below the blog and have a look.

Call me a Right-wing nut, but I reckon the Manchurian Candidate has got some answering to do.

Related posts:

  1. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  2. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  3. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  4. Why did Congressman Joe Wilson need to apologize for calling Obama a liar?