RUTHFULLY YOURS

While St Peter’s heir no doubt means well, his encyclical is a master class in the treachery of good intentions. As Ian Plimer writes in ‘Heaven and Hell’, the green crackpottery Pope Francis embraces and endorses can only hobble the creation of wealth and mire the Third World in perpetual poverty

HEAVEN AND HELL: The Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty
Professor Ian Plimer
Connor Court, 2015, 348pages, $29.95
———————————————————————————————-

One hopes this new book by Professor Ian Plimer will shake the media from its gullible complacency and set it to confronting the gigantic fraud that the IPCC and hack scientists, avaricious governments, corrupted universities, and all the other self-interested parties riding the climate-change gravy train persist in preaching and promoting. While Plimer’s international best-seller, Heaven and Earth, did much to encourage scepticism and independent thought, the treatment it was meted by the liberal media, most notably at the shamelessly partisan ABC, won’t see me holding my breath.

Launched this month, Heaven and Hell is a frontal attack on the absurd, science-free claims peddled by, of all people, Pope Francis in his recent encyclical, Laudate ‘Si. As Plimer puts it, the documemnt is “science-free, an anti-development, anti-market enthusiastic embrace of global green left environmental ideology.”

Plimer goes straight for the jugular in demolishing the misrepresentations, false claims, erroneous predictions, fraudulent science and falsification of raw data –“a cardinal sin” — that represent the dubious basis for the papal pronouncement. The complete lack of any verified theory to explain, adequately and demonstrably, why and how carbon dioxide is heating the world is, of course, key to his critique.

The stabbing intifada may only just recently have come to America, but over in Israel, it’s now practically a daily occurrence.

A civilian security guard on Sunday shot a female Palestinian assailant who stabbed and lightly wounded him, as he stood at his post, just outside the Betar Illit settlement, which is located a short distance away from Jerusalem.

The incident was caught on the municipalities security cameras. An emergency dispatcher saw a Palestinian woman on one of the cameras who she believed looked suspicious. The woman, 22-year-old Halva Aliyan, was dressed from head to toe in traditional black garb, with only her face showing. She carried a purse and walked toward the gate of the city, which has a population of 47,000.

The dispatcher alerted the security guard who then stopped her and asked to see her identification card, which showed that she was born in the nearby Palestinian city of Bethlehem. As the guard focused on checking her card, Aliyan slowly reached into her purse and pulled out a knife. She then lunged at the guard and quickly tried to stab him.

Trigger warning — this will make your blood boil.

At the very heart of our troubles as a country is the degeneration of our educational system.
For many, the SAT is a hurdle long since cleared. For those who are parents, there is still the specter of having to relive the experience vicariously. Those parents, as well as the rest of the population, need to consider yet another instance of forced conformity and a closing of our collective American mind: the format of the new SAT essay. The original SAT did not feature an essay section, the revamped SAT of ten years ago did, and next year there will be yet another version of the test, with an essay section, but one that has a noticeably different format. Traditionally, on virtually every scholastic essay assignment the student is asked to evaluate and respond. As a tutor, I am quite familiar with the rolled eyes and deep sighs at the prospect of writing an essay. However, at its core, the traditional essay format affords each student the opportunity that far too many people on this planet never get: a chance to speak his mind. Whether it is a twenty-minute assignment, or one a kid mulls over several days, the opportunity for self expression is still there. But that opportunity is lost on the new SAT essay. Instead of having the liberty to speak his mind, the student is forced merely to evaluate an essay. The poor student must read an argument, often offensive and deeply flawed, and simply determine how the author made his argument — did he use persuasive language, or appeal to logic or to authority? As an educator, independent thinker, and free-born citizen, I find this change in format to be alarming and wrong.