Rights? What Rights?

Oh boy- where to begin?  With Nancy Pelosi and China? With Liberals in general? With the apparently rapidly spreading ignorance of not only english, but definitions of these english words? Perhaps we should begin with the proper definition of the word “rights”.

Right(s)- In politics, implying preservation of existing, established order or of restoring former institutions.

I have to say, I was never aware that ecology of our planet was a right- an obligation, perhaps- but not a “right”.

Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible (yes, I know that just the mention that ecology was not the exclusive purview of Liberals just drives them NUTS), and done properly, is not only necessary, but desirable in the grand scheme of things, but to call this “green” ridiculousness a “right” is hyping on a scale that makes a fisherman’s stories sound real.

Nancy Pelosi has gone to China, not to chide them on their Human Rights record ( of which they could justifiably be chided indeed), but to inform them of the NEW right that they might not have been aware of (like those other, pesky rights they already ignore). This new one is a responsible path to a greener world, not the democracy thingie, not the “holding Tibet as a slave state” thingie either, despite the pictures she has of her and the Dalai Lama on her web site.

And for all of you who might think that she might be giving away state secrets by showing the Chinese the new ways to use plastic on one’s face, I am fairly sure they already know that one, although perhaps they use melamine- after all, as we have found out, the Chinese believe melamine is a food group.

The botox, well that might engender some interest, although I am fairly sure they already have “inscrutable” down to an art by now, although they might be just a little unsettled at not being able to see emotion on Pelosi’s face. The fact that she, or anyone from the States, could have the unmitigated gall to lecture them on their country’s behavior when ours is in such disarray, just has to leave them speechless. After all, their cars already get better mileage than ours, even though they use a different set of standards.

The average fuel economy of family vehicles in China is already higher than in the United States, mainly because cars in China tend to be considerably smaller than those in the United States — and are getting even smaller because of recent tax changes.

Cars with small fuel-sipping engines are now subject to a 1 percent sales tax, while sports cars and sport utility vehicles with the largest engines are subject to a 40 percent sales tax. Stricter fuel economy standards have won support from four interest groups within the Chinese government, said a Chinese government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.


As they say,their cars are smaller, but the main reason for this miserly usage of oil and gas is fear, because while they had been self- sufficient up ’til 1995, now they import 3/5 of all their oil, and they must do this on seas that are patrolled by the U.S. Navy.  Their navy is not as modern nor is it as large, so their xenophobic paranoia tends to kick in with regard to their energy needs. This doesn’t apply to the coal- fired reactors, for their supply of coal is vast, even though they tend to kill plenty of their citizens doing so.

Still, to have Nancy Pelosi even attempt to lecture them on responsible ethics, green or otherwise, is the height of hypocrisy, and behind their outwardly inscrutable faces, you can bet the farm that they are laughing their butts off. 

Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world. Is there a single instance of ANYTHING that Barama has gotten done in the international arena? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Sending Pelosi might have been effective at scaring their children on Halloween (if they celebrated Halloween), but she, and her message are non- starters. The Chinese will not take her seriously, although for politeness’ sake, they will nod and grin, and soon as she is gone, it will be business as usual.

And they can have a good laugh at her newest “right”.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Rights? What Rights?”

  1. izzatso says:

    An ” eco-right ” huh? Well, I’ll be damned!

  2. Darrel says:

    BLAKE: “Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible…”>>

    Yes, Ann Coulter once explained how her brand of conservatives understand that biblical reference. I’ll quote her:

    “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”
    –Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; June 20, 2001

    This explains why sensible citizens are leery of trusting you guys with the environment.

    BLK: “their cars already get better mileage than ours…”>>

    Thank Bush and your team for successfully fighting the battle to keep our vehicles inefficient (and thus uncompetitive) and then also providing a huge tax break/reward for those who bought extra large and inefficient vehicles.

    BLK: “Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world.”

    You have it ass backwards again. I can easily post the stats showing the profound plummeting of “US street cred” during the Bush administration and how it has surged even in the short period of Obama’s tenure. Would you like me to do that Blake? Just let me know if you would like me to do that.

    I notice that almost all of your articles are filled with insults, hate, blather and ranting. I’m not interested in that but I do notice that on the occasions when you do stray into factual areas, you invariably get your facts wrong. Just an observation. I’m not at all interested in the rants, but if you would endeavor to get your facts right, it wouldn’t make my job so easy.

    Not complaining. I like to help out.


    • Blake says:

      Talking down to me, D? Its you who consistently have your facts wrong, but thats no surprise when you get your facts from the Huffington Post, and freethinkers, etc.
      When you only go to sites that agree with you, you will only get agreeable facts.
      I am not familiar with Coulter’s quote, but IF you know your Bible as you claim, you know the quote is wrong- I think there was sarcasm involved. You DO know sarcasm, D?
      Insults, hate, blather and ranting? You choose to feel superior about dragging some liberal half- facts out as if you had an intellect, instead of actually arguing a case on its merits. A lawyers trick, and not even a particularly good one- can’t win on the actual, provable facts, baffle them with BS>

      • Darrel says:

        The above would be an example of you not straying into factual areas. That is, you make no factual claims, it’s just rant. You might consider adjusting your ratio of rant to substance. Or not.

        You keep schooling me Blake, I am here to learn new things. Mostly I learn from my own investigation of posted claims rather than the actual posts. In another thread I thought for a minute that I had learned something new. “A mother” said Germany has “NO income tax.”

        I thought wow, I didn’t know that. Learned something new.

        But I checked, and it’s wrong.

        Oh well.

        ps. I am co-founder of the Fayetteville Freethinkers and owner of the site you refer to. I only reference it because I have posted so many thousands of times there and know where my stuff is. The posts I refer to are almost without exception, referenced. Feel free to check them.

        You might consider providing references for your claims. It’s a good habit.

    • Blake says:

      If I “stray into factual areas” I must be getting facts- if you do not agree with the facts, that doesn’t keep the facts from being true, just inconvenient for you, but that’s okay, D- I’ll keep schooling you- perhaps some of it will stick.
      Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.

      • Darrel says:

        By saying you stray into a “factual areas” (that is, making factual claims rather than just insulting and ranting), I didn’t mean to imply that this means your claims are actually correct. That doesn’t follow and I meant quite the opposite, as you know.


        • Blake says:

          Well, your sarcasm is sometimes faint indeed- but I am actually correct in many areas, and I do provide references when called for. I just don’t obscure the issue by plastering needless extras on to make myself look better, or more intelligent. I find I do not need to do this overmuch.
          Less is the new more, D.

        • Darrel says:

          More facts, less rant please. Or not.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “am actually correct in many areas,”

          Well, as they say, even a blind pig finds and acorn once in a while.