THE GREAT AIDS HOAX

03/17/09

As he left on a trip to Africa, a continent besieged by AIDS, Pope Benedict XVI drew the wrath of liberals by declaring that the distribution of condoms did nothing to stop the spread of AIDS but, instead, were part of the problem. He recommended abstinence as the only certain protection against the disease.

Mentioning the word "abstinence" in the presence of the liberal press is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. They immediately attacked what they viewed as the Pope's ignorance of the subject and cited the World Health Organization's claim that "consistent and correct" use of condoms reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 percent.

That is a blatant lie.

Being an innately curious person, when AIDS first appeared on the national scene, I avidly read all the material I could find on that deadly disease.

I discovered that the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, is what's known as a "retrovirus". That means it's much smaller in size than the viruses we were used to dealing with.

In fact, according to scientists, the virus is so small that it is able to slip between the molecules of a latex condom. The HIV virus is one-tenth of a micron in diameter. The pores between the molecules in a latex condom are five microns in diameter. You do the math. Condoms provide no protection whatsoever against AIDS!

This fact was made public at the outset of the epidemic but then was effectively squelched by those who find the advocacy of abstinence offensive, unsophisticated, and an excuse to push the moral values of the religious right on the rest of the country

The truth did not serve the political agenda of the left, and so the truth was buried and a lie was deliberately promoted.

Several years later, a government-sponsored poll was taken to determine the degree of AIDS awareness of American households. I was one of the people they polled.

When the young man asked me if I thought AIDS could be prevented by the proper use of condoms, I answered in the negative. Since I had thus far exhibited an acceptable level of awareness of the disease, my answer elicited surprise from the young pollster.

"You don't think so?" he asked, to be sure we'd understood each other.

I went on to explain to him what I'd read about the size of the AIDS virus with relation to the latex molecules of a condom. He told me he'd never heard that before and duly noted my response on his sheet.

If we know that condoms provide no protection whatsoever against contracting AIDS, aren't we doing the gay community a great disservice by leading them to believe they can avoid infection if they engage in "safe" sex?

And take a look at what's happening in Africa. For decades, millions of condoms have been distributed in a misguided effort to stem the spread of the deadly AIDS epidemic on that continent. Despite those efforts, the epidemic has grown worse. Perhaps the truth would have served better.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated that 26.6 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 3.2 million new infections occurred in 2003. In that year alone, the AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 2.3 million Africans. Infection is also increasing at an alarming rate in Asia and Russia.

In view of this pandemic, why do gay rights advocates, who purportedly want to protect and defend the rights of the gay community, cry foul whenever anyone declares abstinence to be the only sure way to avoid contracting this deadly disease? Why do they continue to advocate such a dangerous lifestyle? More importantly, why do these so-called "advocates" continue to perpetuate a myth?

A political agenda cannot possibly be more important than the truth, more important than lives… can it?

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

ARROGANCE OR IGNORANCE?

03/13/09

How many of you recall the glee with which the left celebrated the election of Barack Hussein Obama, gushing that it would be wonderful to once again have an intelligent president who could speak proper English and who would restore America's image in the world?

Not being a nit-picker, I won't bother to mention the number of glaring grammatical errors Obama has made or the fact that he's hard-pressed to construct an intelligent sentence when no teleprompter is available to tell him what to say. Today, I'll only discuss the President's embarrassing rudeness to the prime minister of one of our closest allies.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid Obama the honor of an official visit to welcome the new president — and was roundly snubbed. Obama's deplorable lack of manners has infuriated our British friends. One British spokesperson complained that Obama treated their prime minister as though he were nothing more than a "tinpot third world dictator".

Prime Minister Brown presented Obama with thoughtful, expensive, suitable gifts, which included a pen made from the timbers of a British warship which fought the slave trade off the coast of Africa and whose sister ship provided the wood for the desk in the Oval Office.

In return, Obama gave the Prime Minister a box of 25 DVDs of "classic American movies". Do you suppose Obama actually thought this was an appropriate gift for a foreign head of state?

Not to be outdone, First Lady Michelle presented the Browns' two young sons with toy models of the presidential helicopter which, the British press complained, were "no doubt plucked from the White House gift shop at the last minute." She is being portrayed in the British press as Lady Macbeth.

Oh, yes. . . Obama did give the prime minister something else. He removed from the Oval Office and returned to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill which had been gifted to the United States by Prime Minister Tony Blair shortly after the attacks of September 11 as a symbol of solidarity and of the "special relationship" between our two nations. Certainly, Obama may have wanted to move the bust to a less prominent spot — but to return it? I cannot even imagine what Obama was thinking!

Obama did not bother to fete the British PM at a state dinner, and he refused to hold the traditional joint press conference with the visiting head of state. In short, President Obama behaved like an ignorant lout and offended one of our closest allies. The British people and press are so infuriated by Obama's treatment of their prime minister that one news commentator has urged the American people to send letters of apology to the British Embassy in Washington, DC. If you would like to do so, you may write to:

British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20008

My question to Bush bashers and Obama supporters is this: Can you cite one time when President George W. Bush behaved in such a deplorable manner that it was necessary for the American public to apologize for him?

My next question is this: Is Obama so arrogant that he doesn't care about anything but himself and his own agenda? Or is he simply stupid and ignorant? You decide.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM

03/09/09

Today, while signing an executive order that would provide taxpayer money to researchers to kill human embryos in order to use their tissues for stem cell research, President Obama said of his action, "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

That's great. Why don't we apply that guideline across the board?

We can begin with stem cell research.

Though certain embryonic stem cells have been available to researchers for years, not one viable treatment or cure has resulted from that research.

On the other hand, adult stem cell research is already providing promising treatment for stroke, brain injury, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and much more.

With these facts in mind, wouldn't our money be better spent funding adult stem cell research?

Or take global warming. Global warming has now been renamed "climate change", because it's become increasingly difficult to sell the notion of "global warming" to a population dealing with one of the coldest winters in decades.

The extravagant, pork-filled spending bill that was pushed through Congress has earmarked over $78 billion to fund projects to combat "global warming" and "climate change". President Obama has proposed a "cap-and-trade" carbon tax that would destroy some industries, under the excuse of controlling carbon emissions that contribute to "global warming". And toxic mini-fluorescent lightbulbs are being foisted on us under the excuse of saving the planet from "global warming".

It seems that everyone in proximity to a microphone, from environmentalists to politicians to celebrities to has-beens, is trying to snooker us into believing that (1) the earth is growing significantly warmer, (2) this climate change is occurring solely due to man's presence on the planet, and (3) this is somehow a bad thing.
The more extreme viewpoint holds that rather than being part of the ecosystem, man is an intruder — a virus, if you will — whose very presence is contaminating the planet.

These people cite computer models which indicate that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the temperature will rise two or three — or perhaps ten — degrees in the next hundred years. No one really knows, because the results of their computer models vary greatly and do not point to a single disastrous result, as proponents would have us believe.

Curiously enough, the geniuses who created the models failed to take into account the effect the sun has on our temperature. How do you suppose they've failed to notice that the sun heats the earth??

The plain fact of the matter is that global warming alarmists are cherry-picking their data. Here are just a couple of examples:

We have been warned that "most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues." [Reuters] Most? Might? If? Isn't that just a bit vague? And that's presupposing that "global warming" is fact, not fiction. We are bombarded with propaganda about the polar ice caps shrinking — but we are not told that it's only at sea level that the glaciers are melting; the ice cap on Greenland is actually thickening.

In his movie, Al Gore claims "global warming" is causing the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro to melt. However, according to the International Journal of Climatology (a more reliable source than Mr. Gore), the reason there's less snow on Kilimanjaro is because clear-cutting of the rain forest is responsible for reduced snowfall. Yet Mr. Gore's solution to this problem is for me to drive my car less. And that will address the problem of clear-cutting Asian rain forests. . . how, precisely?

We are told that man is responsible for the earth's changing climate. However, according to the Danish National Space Center's report entitled The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing, sunspot activity and solar climate are responsible for changing climate here on earth.

If the notion of global warming is such an incontrovertible fact, why do its advocates hide scientific data that does not support their theory?

Even if we were to accept the theory of man-made global warming, who decided that the current climate is ideal? Higher temperatures would mean longer summers, more arable land, longer growing seasons, lower heating costs — all of which are actually quite beneficial.

These so-called experts focus on western civilization — more specifically, the United States and our affluent society — as the root of all evil, while giving Asian nations, which are the greatest polluters, a pass. They would have us believe that only by giving up all our modern conveniences can we stop the threat of global warming.

In point of fact, one volcanic eruption spews more toxins into the atmosphere than the accumulated contamination of all of mankind, and one solar flare affects weather on earth more than anything man could possibly do.

Perhaps Obama's directive that " we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology" should be practiced across the board? I'm sure if those scientists who endorse the theory of man-made "global warming" were to look at their data objectively, rather than through the distortion of ideology, they would arrive at a far different conclusion.

I wholeheartedly agree with the president! Let's base all scientific research on facts, not ideology!

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.