Who is it, exactly, in America today that represents the greatest threat to our environment? If you choose to believe all the propaganda and all the world is coming to an end, "Liberal" rhetoric you would think that is in fact the evil corporations of the world all of whom that would like nothing better than to see the environment destroyed, all in the name of making a buck. Now honestly, does this really make any sense? After all, the people who run those "evil" corporations all have families too. Are we supposed to believe that they care so little for there own families that they are willing to destroy the world they would grow up in?

No it’s not the corporations that are out to destroy the world. The people trying to do that are much more devious and have much more sinister motives.

You see the group, or groups, that continually prove to be the most dangerous to the environment are made up of the very same environmental extremists who claim to be attempting to protect us from ourselves while protecting the environment for future generations. Whether it’s the needless banning of DDT or perpetuating the myth that ethanol is the miracle fuel of the future these self-proclaimed protectors of the environment have already caused more damage than can repaired in most of our lifetimes. In their effort to protect nature, they blindly prohibit measures from being completed that would actually be of benefit in reaching the goals they so loudly profess to be all about. By continuing to advocate damaging policies that expose our forests to higher risks of catastrophic forest fires, as well as turning a blind eye toward certain pollutants, for politically correct reasons, they tend to aggravate already serious problems. In the end, policies are instituted that may actually accelerate the damage done to our rivers and lakes and are actually helping to achieve the damaging end result that is supposed to be 180 degrees out from what these group claim to be hoping to achieve.

By lobbying for restrictive commercial logging practices these environmental fanatics have gotten us to the point where we have too much fuel, too many trees, in our forests. In the 1800s the average Ponderosa Pine stand would have held 20-60 tress per acre. Today that same acre holds 300-900 trees. That is basically an unsustainable number per acre, resulting in a weakening of all the trees as they compete for available water and nutrients. Weakened trees make for even better fuel making for even bigger fires. However, Liberals seem oblivious to the increased fire risk.

Another example of the hypocrisy of our ever-vigilant protectors of the environment is when they face the dilemma of contraceptive contamination, an area that is very politically sensitive to your average liberal. Now to some of you this may not sound like much, but the result of this type of water pollution, particularly from the hormones contained in these products is very damaging to fish as well as any other animal, as well as people, that use the contaminated water. You’d be correct in asking if these chemicals are in fact causing damage, why aren’t these saviors of the environment lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep them from being dumped into our rivers? Well it’s quite simple really. It’s because the source of these chemicals is not some evil corporate polluter, but something much more near and dear to heart of every liberal advocate of birth control; birth control pills, morning after pills, and abortion pills. Imagine that! They betray themselves by remaining silent on this issue along with their willingness to distort the issue when they do talk about it. They expose themselves as frauds using the environment more as a tool for advancing leftist policies than for any real concern for the environment.

I mentioned earlier the needless banning of DDT. This is worth going into some detail about because this is one of the most, is not "the" most heinous acts that can be laid directly at the feet of the environment nut jobs who will stop at nothing to rid the world of anything that they feel is dangerous. Even if there is absolutely zero factual information to back them up, they will, as in the case of DDT, simply make up their own facts. Now, you may ask why I call this little accomplishment their heinous. Because it was directly responsible for the death of countless millions of innocent lives due to diseases carried by insects. The whole premise regarding the so-called danger of DDT was complete fiction dreamed up by one of the patron saints of the environmental movement, Rachel Carson. In her book "Silent Spring" she states that DDT, in even miniscule amounts, can do considerable harm to the health of humans, which it can not. She equates herbicides with radiation, a comparison that make absolutely no sense. She flatly lies about tests results regarding the effects of DDT on birds. She even lists about 90 birds that she says were affected by DDT, but she fails to note that the Audubon Christmas Bird counts "continued to reveal more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest DDT years, including those type of birds that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. It seems that marshes sprayed with DDT showed an explosion in bird numbers since diseases carried by insects declined.

The needless death of so many people in Africa is an especially shameful result of the assault on DDT. In countries where there is obvious correlation between the incidence of malaria and the GDP levels, the elimination of malaria is essentially the elimination of poverty. DDT was a very important weapon against malaria because it is affordable, effective, persistent, and relatively harmless to humans. When used against the malaria carrying mosquitoes it is highly effective in controlling malaria with the end result being lifting millions out of poverty. You’d think with the left so wrapped up with the needs of the world’s poor, they would see that the effectiveness of DDT far outweighs any hazards.

What we all need to realize is that the major flaw of common ownership (government ownership) is that more often than not it has a severe lack of incentives for good management. There exists no positive incentive for good management. Since most governments, local or national, are only in power for a few years at a time there is no focus on the long-term value of property, be it forests, rivers or anything else for that matter that is viewed as a natural resource. Whereas when property is held in the hands of private citizens there is always a focus on the long term, since the property can be left has an inheritance, given as a gift or sold in a transaction. Common ownership clearly not only fails to protect the environment it is a positive danger to the environment at times even acting as a accelerating agent in its demise.

I could go on, but what’s the point. Until a majority of people wake up and see the environmental "movement" for the charade that it is we will be cursed with all the nonsense that goes along with it for the foreseeable future. But until you do, be ready for more and bigger forest fires, more expensive gas, more expensive food and on and on and on.