Environmentalists want to save the Spotted Owl by ending the practice of controlled logging which replaces each tree cut with six to eight more new trees. Loggers control combustible underbrush which result in out-of-control fires like the massive wildfire currently burning areas of California.

This environmentally disastrous inferno has consumed nearly 400 square miles of timber, meadows, and sensitive wildlife habitat and nearly 250,000 acres of pristine Californian forest since Aug. 17, including a large area of Yosemite National Park. The cost to fight the blaze is nearing $100 million in addition to the tens of millions of dollars spent on repairing the damaged environment. Another area at risk is a major municipal water reservoir serving nearly 3 million people.

But guess what? With radical environmentalists getting their wish, the forest and its trees covering hundreds of square miles is being destroyed by raging fires. What then happens to the wild animals as their habitat is being completely destroyed?

So who was proven right: radical environmentalists or true environmentally-conscious loggers who control the underbrush which provide the fuel for these fires? Who would be happier if there were no people on earth to pollute the environment? Right – the radicals environmentalists.

Liberal seek to protect all animals including rats that eat and ruin food stored in silos and barns. But according to Leftist theology, people are persona non grata and need to be eliminated – if not prior to birth, then prior to or during onset of old age that is often accompanied by higher medical costs.

Recently, construction was halted in Delaware because a swamp or pond was occupied by snapping turtles, a protected species in Delaware. Contractors were forced to halt construction until the snapping turtles were all captured and relocated to another suitable location.

In other cases involving sea turtles, areas of beaches where they nest are roped off and signs posted to protect their eggs. In high beach traffic areas, animal rights crews dig up the eggs to relocate them to safer locations.

If turtle eggs are valued so highly, why is the human fertilized egg in the womb held in such disdain? With hardly the blink of an eye, nearly 1.5 million American babies are aborted each year. That places a greater value on unhatched turtle eggs than on a growing baby inside the womb.

Deer that feed at public and tourist areas become dependent on food they do not have to find and work for. Where people provide food for them, deer eventually paw the ground impatiently and practically demand to be fed. There is rational reason for all those “Please-Do-Not-Feed-the-Deer” signs placed by various animal rights groups. The concern is that if deer become accustomed to being fed by people, they will lose their desire and ability to fend for themselves.

A herd of deer that has become dependent on people for their sustenance appear appreciative of their free meals, but then become demanding and eventually do nothing to help themselves as they wait for the next free meal. Soon, they lose their natural will and skills at foraging for food and sustenance.

The same rationale applies to animals housed in zoos, especially since birth. They lose their innate skills for surviving in the wild. Captive animals are rarely let back into the wild without some form of preparation; else they will not know how to survive and will be at the mercy of the elements.

Animal rights groups know the unforeseen consequences of dependency, and that is why Liberals want to save turtles, deer, rats and a host of wild animals, yet they have no qualms about imposing dependency on taxpayers who provide excessive, unearned welfare and other misnamed entitlements in return for unquestioned control and votes by the political party in power.

Deer gravitate to those who feed them, just as dependent people vote for those who provide their welfare. Liberals fight fervently to save a tree from being cut down but have no qualms about murdering innocent children in their mother’s womb. Animal rights activists discourage dependence of wild deer by feeding them but have no qualms about making able-bodied people dependent by giving them unearned welfare.

Liberals believe feeding deer makes them dependent, but disagree on how this truism applies to people. Liberals know government handouts make people dependent, but that is precisely the point – beneficiaries of unearned welfare are easier to lead and are more politically compliant.

Liberals fight fervently to save a tree from being chopped down, yet they have no qualms about murdering innocent children in their mother’s womb. Nor do Liberals have concern about dependency being forced on people who receive unearned entitlements paid for by taxpayers.

As to aborted babies, science has proven that babies can feel pain but tunnel-vision liberals disregard science since it does not conform to their agenda. The question of whether a developing baby in the womb can feel pain must always revert to the principle of law, innocent until proven guilty.

When in doubt, the least damaging decision must hold. Since the child is totally unprotected and cannot speak for itself to express pain or not, the child must be protected if for no other reason than precaution. Once the damage is done in the womb, it cannot be undone and therefore, until and unless ability to feel pain or not is absolutely proven the humane way must be to take the precaution that the child might feel pain. Therefore, pain should not be inflicted.

It may not be readily obvious but virtually all problems are related and connected one way or the other. Example, abortion is somewhat related to illegal immigration. Were it not for abortion there would be no need for illegal immigrants to venture into a nation that had a sufficient workforce.

The anecdotal evidence is great as Obama proves when he brings in one person to prove his point, but excludes the 99 others that might believe the opposite. Conclusion: Liberals seem to be happier without people in the equation.

One thing regarding the intelligentsia: They do not tolerate common sense. All their studies about their own imaginations conclude that only they are right in assumptions they present as fact. The principal fact that Liberals ignore is that of the Creator – like they know how life started from non-life, which is a physical impossibility.

Charles Darwin’s origin of the species had hundreds of years to prove its musings and validity, but that has not happened, because it cannot happen. If absolute evolution could produce life, there would not have been any need for sex, and once begun evolution would not have stopped. So why are there no more evolutions? There have always been interruptions in the expansive growth of mankind due to disease, plagues, war, violence, natural disasters, etc. God, like it or not, created life with the order to increase and multiply.

The population is aging. The economy might never get to sufficient employment levels with a population that does not grow proportionately. Science is not needed to prove that the poor and unemployed are severely limited on what and how much they can purchase to keep the economy humming.

Crime and drugs are related to the non-existent job market. Without jobs, cities become fertile ground for every sort of vice with calamity fueled by breakdown of morals and the traditional one-man one-woman monogamous marriage that is ideal for bringing up children.

America is living in the age of the lesser evil that, like rot, progressively gets more evil. “Striving for the greater good is superior to settling for the lesser evil.” Righteous America has been at war since WWII that ended August 15, 1945 – marking sixty- eight years since the last time the US won a war. Some of the military failures since WWII include the wars in Korea, VietNam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and now perhaps Syria.

Like it or not, Islam is dominant in 57 countries and has secret cells embedded in the US. Does America have what it takes to save the Republic? Or when all the dots are finally connected, will it mean the end of this once great United States of America?