Feb
18

Good thing we have Human Events Online!




Posted at 23:11 by Sadly, No!

Don’t take our word for it — take the word of the world’s leading constitutional scholar, Ann Coulter:

For example, in recent issues of HUMAN EVENTS

I also read the following quote. “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them.” Was this an Islamic terrorist? Jacques Chirac complaining about Paris traffic? No. . . it was a radical environmentalist complaining that the insecticide DDT was actually saving lives.

Liberal coverage — NONE

No liberal coverage? Could it have anything to do that the alleged quote dates back to 1972?

Charles W?rster, a leading environmentalist with the Environmental Defence Fund captured Green thinking succinctly in 1972 when the US Environmental Protection Agency was in the process of banning DDT. When someone pointed out to him that banning DDT would cost lives in poor countries he is reported to have said: “So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any.”

And that would be us being very generous, since even the wingnuts who keep pushing the claim always describe this as an alleged quote. Some people have, apparently, done more research:

They [House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971] did allow Wurster to submit a letter that was included in the transcripts (page 268):

I wish to deny all of the statements of Mr, Yannacone. His remarks about me, attributed to me, and about other trustees of EDF are purely fantasy and bear no resemblance to the truth. It was in part because Mr. Yannacone lost touch with reality that he was dismissed by EDF, and his remarks of May 1970 indicate that his inability to separate fact from fiction has accelerated.

I respectfully request that my denial of any truth to Mr. Yannacone’s remarks be made part of the record of these hearings.

None of the authors who have quoted Wurster’s alleged comments have indicated that he denied making the remarks. No one that I know of has ever produced a transcript or other record of the supposed news conference.

So there you have it — the liberal media won’t give prominent coverage to alleged quotes made in the early 1970s by people you’ve never heard of. Of course, that won’t stop many from arguing that the liberal media is out to get you. When you’re young and in love, it’s hard to resist such a tempting conspiracy of fucksticks. (Or a fucksticracy as we call it around the house.)

20 Comments »

  1. glenstonecottage said,

    February 18, 2005 at 23:51

    “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” -Mark Twain

    Especially with professional liars like mAnn and Flush out there, well paid for repeating and amplifying anything the Wingnut Lie Machine can come up with.

    Nice smackdown, Seb.

  2. Vestal Vespa said,

    February 19, 2005 at 0:54

    I kind of ripped Tom DeWeese a new one on my blog for his latest anti-Kyoto tirade. In it, he talks about how the KGB-style tactics of environmentalists have resulted in the removal of “beneficial” products like Freon an DDT from the market.

    Cuck-oo . . .

  3. G. D. Frogsdong said,

    February 19, 2005 at 4:07

    You went and looked up the facts? Shame on you. Here, have a nice glass of Kool-aid. Drink i-i-i-t. DRINK IT!

  4. Ueberscheisse said,

    February 19, 2005 at 16:38

    I respectfully suggest that the Official Term for Administration of Fucksticks be changed to “Fuckstickocracy”, as I believe “Fucksticracy” shortchanges the stick in Fuckstick.

    “Thank you very kindly, Goodnight!”
    -Geddy Lee

  5. Brad R. said,

    February 19, 2005 at 17:40

    Similarly, World Net Daily’s hard-nosed team of investigative reporters have blown the lid off Satan’s plan to get Saddam acquitted (although Saddam may have lost favorability with The Dark Lord after losing his super magic stone).

    WHY AREN’T THE LIBERAL MEDIA COVERING THIS IMPORTANT STORY?! NOT ONLY DO THEY HATE FREEDOM, BUT THEY HATE GOD TOO??!!?!

  6. alt hippo said,

    February 19, 2005 at 23:05

    My fellow Cornellian, Annie Dearest, has been a nutcase for as long as any of us can remember.

    I think Franken’s explanation is the simplest. She’s never forgiven the left for its sponsorship of the 1960′s.

  7. tilda said,

    February 20, 2005 at 6:20

    “Fuckstickocracy”

    “fucksticracy”

    I love coming here! This site expands my vocabulary and helps me with my dictionary writing project.

    ;)

  8. Bartholomew said,

    February 20, 2005 at 15:06

    Coulter avenges James Watt…

  9. damnum absque injuria said,

    February 20, 2005 at 23:17

    Sadly, No, Sarcasm and Ignorance Don’t Mix

    Sadly, No holds this truth to be self-evident that every thug who attacks American interests should be entitled to all the same constitutional protections as the ordinary blokes who live here, and takes Human Events Online to task for suggesting otherw…

  10. 16 said,

    February 21, 2005 at 7:25

    Charles W?rster, a leading environmentalist with the Environmental Defence Fund captured Green thinking succinctly in 1972 when the US Environmental Protection Agency was in the process of banning DDT. When someone pointed out to him that banning DDT would cost lives in poor countries

    When was it EPA acquired the ability to ban DDT outside of the United States? I hadn’t heard that one.

    This one world government thing they’ve been warning me about is coming on faster than I thought. It’s retroactive!

  11. markg said,

    February 22, 2005 at 21:56

    The term “fuckstick” was commonly used by my foulmouthed adolescent friends, and I, when we attended a central Indiana high school in the early 60′s. I never again heard or saw it used after I left high school, until this post. Thanks for inducing the warm glow of nostalgia.

  12. Michael said,

    February 23, 2005 at 4:03

    I believe that’s “fuckstickocracy”. C’mon.

  13. Michael said,

    February 23, 2005 at 4:05

    Hey! That “fuckstickocracy” was mine! What is up with the comments?

  14. Don Briscar said,

    November 2, 2006 at 0:04

    The 2006 and 2008 elections should not be a mandate as to whether Republicans or Democrats will do a better job of running our government as both do a consistently poor job of it. During the next three years the people should make their voices scream with disgust because we are governed by the immovable and destructive force known as incumbency and the self-serving members of Congress and their representative lobbies and fully in control. I suppose some Americans approve of that.

    Yes, I do understand that incumbency is the re-election and confirmation that the few, the rich and the powerful have convinced us that it takes unusually arrogant and self-righteous public servants to write the laws as duly prescribed by the few, the rich and powerful check writers that represent the few, the rich and powerful corporations and organizations that require the undivided attention of Washington bureaucrats. How many Americans truly understand that U.S. Senators serve six years and congressmen serve two-year terms? “Re-election Day� is just a thoughtful reminder to the people to recognize the face on the yard signs and billboards, from previous years, and automatically cast a vote with the assurance that they are being represented on all matters of health, education, welfare, national security, and the environment, but pay no attention to the fact that their fingers are crossed. Given the walk and posture of some of the veteran Senators and Congressmen, their toes may be crossed as well.

    As a registered Independent, I do not believe that my voice is lost in shadows of the propaganda of the Republican and Democratic parties, I just have to work harder to have my voice heard as do the increasing number of voters who are dropping their allegiances to the two ugly political sisters. Party allegiance is a redundant act that has helped to create this monster and for those who blindly vote “just Republican� or “just Democrat� tell me that they are incapable of making intelligent, independent decisions. If I were to tell you that “ political rhetoric of party affiliation gets annoying to now disinterested Americans� the acronym would be PROPAGANDA which is exactly what the RNC and DNC want us to ingest. I encourage you, if you have any party allegiances, to put them aside and register as an Independent and let your decisions be from the heart and not influenced by twisted ideologies that cause more turmoil amongst our elected officials than compromise and co-operation which truly works for the benefit of the people.

    The people will only get the power back when they take the power people out.

  15. Joseph W Smith said,

    January 6, 2007 at 15:51

    As I read the U. S. Constitution, I’m given the right to property, including the right to exist, according to American standards, on my earnings, and that right supercedes all statutory law. I’ve not heard or read any disagreement with my understanding.

    If I have a grievance about the way the Constitution is interpreted, I’m expected to hire an attorney and take my grievance to court, at a minimum cost of $500,000. To my knowledge, the A.C.L.U. has never taken such a case.

    If I’m a worker living from hand to mouth, in tax matters America’s system of justice doesn’t cover me. I wrote a letter of protest to Attorney General William B. Saxbe, the number one lawyer in the United States. Without response, Saxbe forwarded my letter to the IRS. Saxbe is the people’s lawyer, not the individual’s lawyer. To Saxbe, mine was an individual grievance. He had legal precedence to back him.

    In accordance with said legal precedence, I quote from a letter I received from Director of Internal Revenue Erwin B. Osborne.

    Dear Mr. Smith:

    I am glad to respond to your letter of August 19 addressed to me and your letter of July 12 addressed to Attorney General William B. Saxbe, which has been passed along to me for reply.

    You asked if Congress has the right to tax any amount of personal income up to 100%, with no limitations. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed by Congress in 1909 and finally ratified by three-fourths of the States in 1913, provides—bla, bla, bla.

    This amendment, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, makes no mention of limitations, so I assume that Congress has the power to tax total income at a given level. . .

    You should be aware that the United States “assumes� it has the authority to tax the individual any amount up to 100% of his income, without concern for the taxpayer’s existence. You should be aware, as well, that Black’s Law Dictionary, in answer to the United States’ assumption, under the word “lawful:�

    A further distinction is that the word “legal� is used as the synonym of “constructive,� which “lawful� is not. Thus “legal fraud� is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.

    You should be aware of this because the average citizen doesn’t know the difference in “lawful� and “legal,� doesn’t know that the United States, in the income tax, has constructed a “legal fraud.� Save the Court of Claims, I’ve been in every federal court in the land, including the Supreme Court. As I read the law, in the case where the taxpayer, because of limited finances, represents himself, the judge is required to take that into consideration and use reason in making his decision.

    The U.S. Court of Appeal in 1946 decided that federal income tax was not confiscatory. The federal judiciary has never heard one case since on the allegation of confiscatory taxation. The United States can confiscate every cent of a worker’s earnings and even garnish his wages to collect the tax the worker is alleged to owe. It makes no sense so it is not the law; it is legalized banditry. You should be made aware that I went to The Palm Beach Post with my court papers. A reporter took an interest in my case. The following story appeared on the front page of the Local News section:

    Monday, December 1, 1986
    By Joe Brogan, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
    WEST PALM BEACH—Joseph W. Smith Jr. is convinced he’ll never have any peace as long as he’s a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service exists.
    He’s driven by an 11-year feud with the IRS over what turned out to be erroneous assessments on his 1973 and 1974 federal income tax returns.
    The problems started in 1975 when his return was audited. The IRS twice collected the money, twice returned it with interest after Smith filed suit, and then again tried to collect the money this month—despite a federal court order that said Smith didn’t owe the IRS anything.
    Holger Euringer, IRS public relations officer in Jacksonville, said last week that the agency had been wrong all along and that Smith soon would receive a letter of apology from the IRS district director.
    “We did make numerous mistakes in the collection procedures,� Euringer said. “We’re very sorry and we apologize. We did not intend in any way to harass or intimidate him, but I can see why he might have that impression.� Court documents, IRS letters and Smith’s files tell a chilling story of IRS bumbling that began in 1975 when the agency disagreed with Smith on how much he owed in 1973 and 1974 taxes.
    After the audit, the IRS said Smith owed $1,408 in back taxes in addition to what he had paid. Smith disagreed, so the IRS took out the money he was owed in rebates as a result of business losses in other years.
    Smith filed suit, but the government kept the money until just before his 1978 hearing in U.S. Tax Court, when IRS officials admitted the assessment was inaccurate, according to court records.
    The IRS said its error was caused by confusion over what Smith and his ex-wife individually owed in 1974, the year they were divorced. The court ruled that he owed only $640 for 1974, and the rest of the assessment was refunded to him. The court also said Smith had been overcharged $300 in 1973, and ordered a refund.
    During the three years it took to get his suit settled, Smith said , the IRS improperly held $5,000 it owed him because of business-related operating loss rebates.
    Euringer said the IRS is not allowed to withhold refunds pending the outcome of court cases unless the total amount is applied to taxes owed.
    “If what he’s saying is correct, we were wrong,� he said.
    Then, in 1980, the IRS took a second look at Smith’s 1973 and 1974 tax returns and said he owed $2,556 plus interest. The IRS took the money out of the proceeds from the sale of a condominium in Portland, OR. . . .
    In 1983, Smith filed suit in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach to get the money back. But before the case could go to trial, according to documents from the tax division of the U.S. Justice Department, the division declared the $2,556 assessment a wrongful levy.
    Kayla Lettow, a tax auditor with the examination section of the agency’s Problems Resolution Office, said last week that the assessment was dropped because Oregon IRS revenue officer W. J. Manderfield incorrectly analyzed Smith’s tax liability.
    So on Nov.28, 1984, Smith signed an agreement with Justice in which he dropped the suit in exchange for a refund of the $2556, plus $1,675 in interest.
    Smith said he waited for months, however, and no check came. So he reopened his suit. On March 11, 1985, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Paine ordered the IRS to pay up in 30 days.
    Smith received a check for $4,231 on April 12, 1985, five months after the deal was made and just one day before the government would have been in contempt of Paine’s order. . . .
    But on October 23, 1986, he said, an IRS revenue agent came to his door demanding that he pay $3,130 in assessment, interest and penalties owed
    on his1974 taxes. He said the agent told him the IRS mistakenly had
    refunded the money.
    Action wasn’t long in coming. On Nov. 5, the IRS issued a notice to Barnett Bank of Palm Beach saying it wanted the $960 in Smith’s bank account because he owed $961.70 on his 1974 return. Euringer said the Nov. 5 bank account levy was a mistake.

    I’ve now made you aware that the United States went to considerable trouble to discourage me. The American press should wonder why. I’ve never read one word of wonder. The free press should wonder about a lot of the conniving of the United States. Looking at the “Memorandum for the Respondent in Opposition,� in The Supreme Court of the United States (case No. 80-1570), October Term, 1980, Wade H. McCree, Jr. Solicitor General:

    There is no basis for petitioner’s claim that the income tax is an unconstitutional confiscation of property without due process of law.

    Petitioner’s charges of fraud and harassment by the Internal Revenue Service are similarly without merit.

    Attorney McCree is a highly trained, highly paid government liar. The press asks no question about it. Thanks to the Palm Beach Post, the IRS paid me back with interest what it lawlessly took from me. Because the press doesn’t question this kind of government action, in 1994 the same IRS office in Portland, Oregon came at me again, this time lawlessly demanding over $35,000 in unpaid tax, penalty and interest. My wife and I were threatened with confiscation of our bank account. The IRS threatened to garnish my wife’s pay, threatened to take our home in payment of a tax we didn’t owe.
    .
    Government entitlement is a pyramid game. Par for the course, conniving politicians look for ways to give people a lot for a little—let the next generation deal with the problems, generation after generation, until we go down the tube. And the press never asks a question.

    Bickering politicians send the message to do unto others before they do unto you. Government is getting evermore intrusive. Americans of the liberal persuasion are burning the flag and marching in the streets. These people think government should be the cure-all for their woes. The press never asks a question of the constitutionality of this conniving government. It robs Peter to pay Paul.

    As a taxpayer, I know my government is a lawless, conniving fraud. I got one story in the newspaper for all my hard work, which doesn’t say a lot for America’s free press.

  16. Erwin Mader said,

    July 7, 2008 at 20:34

    Where can I find the book “German cancer Breakthrough” by Andrew Scholberg.

  17. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 7, 2008 at 20:39

    Over there.

  18. mikey said,

    July 7, 2008 at 21:56

    Nope. I moved it way over here…

    mikey

  19. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 7, 2008 at 22:05

    Now I look like an idiot because people keep moving that stack of Matt Furey videos around and fucking up the catalog.

  20. mikey said,

    July 7, 2008 at 22:10

    Sorry, RB. I wasn’t fucking with you, I just put in with the other stuff I didn’t want my mom to see if she looked in February…

    mikey

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()