The
first ad showed the portrait of a Pennsylvania family with two kids who were
saying, “Let’s move milk out of school lunch” A much smaller print said, “One
in eight Americans is lactose intolerant.”
Really? Because 12.5% of the population is lactose intolerant we must
now remove milk from everyone’s diet because the 12.5% are not smart enough and
would drink something that would cause them to be sick? Should we take all peanut
butter out of consumption because some people are allergic to peanuts? Is there
perhaps a more onerous reason why we would want to ban anything that comes from
animals, especially cows because they are the primary “emitters” of methane gas,
a gas blamed for global warming by the left?
The
second ad, with a smiling 9 year old girl from Georgia said, “Let’s move cheese
out of my school lunch.” Much smaller letters proclaimed, “Most cheese is 70%
fat.” Would the food police go next after all products that contain cheese? Do
we need the nanny state to tell us what to eat? Should we be using children as
pawns to advance liberal agendas?
In
the third ad, a 6 year old boy from New Jersey says, “Let’s move hot dogs out
of my school lunch.” In smaller letters, the ad continues, “Processed meats increase
colorectal cancer risk.” Aren’t most meats, by definition, processed? Should all
humans become vegetarian or vegan?
The
three ads are sponsored by Let’sReallyMove.org, the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, a pro-vegan group. I have no problem with people
following a vegan diet, other than the fact that they look kind of ashen, waxy
and sickly. Millions of Americans, however, prefer to get their protein from
meat, cheese, eggs, and milk. Besides, there are not enough vegetables cultivated
on the planet and grasses to satisfy all demand from 7 billion humans,
domesticated animals, and wild animals. In liberal opinion, which ones should
be sacrificed first through starvation, humans or animals? Do humans take a
back seat to nature as animals gain rights and can sue us as part of the
planetary stewardship?
UN
Agenda 21’s 40 chapters outline human activities and decisions that are not
sustainable based on environmental impact on global land use, global education,
and global population control and reduction: family unit, farming, commercial
agriculture, livestock, pesticides, herbicides, grazing cattle, irrigation,
paved roads, private property, fossil fuels, golf courses, ski lodges,
consumerism, logging, dams, reservoirs, fences, and power lines.
Food
must be controlled through regulations and interdiction of agriculture achieved
through water control, land usage control, genetically engineered seeds that do
not germinate again after the first year’s crop, pesticides and herbicide use.
The planet must be de-populated to manageable levels, no more than a billion
people, and the family unit must be restructured. As Harvey Rubin, the Vice
Chair of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) now
called Local Governments for Sustainability, has said, “Individual rights must
take a back seat to the collective.” Is that not communism but on steroids?
Education
curricula must purposefully dumb down education for Sustainable Development. Agenda
21 for Dummies quotes, “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher
incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have
lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to
sustainability.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM)
Good
stewards of the planet, young and impressionable students have to “construct
[their own] understandings of reality and [realize)] that objective reality is
not knowable.” The aim of education is the knowledge not of facts but of
values.” (‘Constructivism’ as defined and quoted in Agenda 21 for Dummies You
Tube video)
Suddenly,
foods that have sustained generations around the globe, preventing malnutrition,
calcium deficiency, osteopenia, and osteoporosis are now maligned by the nanny
state, by the elites who know what is best for us. Is it any wonder that we are
skeptical?
No comments:
Post a Comment