HELL FIRE TO BE EXTINGUISHED
Hell’s fire is to be extinguished according to an alarming news report from the environmental front. Environmentalists and Global Warming activists have discovered that hell, with its unquenchable burning sulfuric fires, is a major source of environmental pollution, second only to the automobile. Hell must go.
How did this revelation come about you may ask? Well it seems that during the recent "Earth Hour," held worldwide at 8PM on March 30th, all environmentalists, global warming activists and other assorted weirdos and wackos were refraining from all electrical use and illumination and were sitting in the dark brainstorming, insofar as possible for their types, about what major action they could take to save the earth. Because their "Earth Hour" was actually accomplishing diddly squat and since most non-believers still snicker at the new religion of Gaiaism , Mother Earthism or Environmentalism, they decided no better revenge could be had on the non-believers in the environmental catastrophe scenario than to extinguish the fires of Hell because they are a major pollutant of Mother Earth.
I know many of you may be concerned that you were not consulted in this momentous decision. Probably because at the appointed hour of "Earth Hour" you were actually using electricity to watch ‘March Madness’, play a video game or watch your favorite sit com or celebrity show on television. When is the most popular American Idol on the tube? Don’t worry it just makes you normal, a condition that drives activists nuts. "Earth Hour" is supposed to be a worldwide event, started in Australia, in which we all stop using all mechanical devises and electricity and meditate in the dark, or by candlelight, upon mankind’s despoiling of sacred Mother Earth. As you can imagine the loonier you are the more sense the idea of "Earth Hour" makes. In the U.S. major cities that participated are San Francisco, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Need I say more. So by watching television, turning on a light bulb or ignoring the whole thing you struck a blow for common sense.
The greatest successes for "Earth Hour" were in Third World countries that have no electricity or have dictators that limit the poor from using modern appliances. They are always in the dark. Some have called for North Korea to be proclaimed a ‘Hero of the Earth State’ because all citizens, except the dictator, have their electricity cut off every night at 9PM. Consider the Earth friendliness of North Korea. The people barely consume any food, their agriculture is below subsistence, there is no industrial production to emit pollutants, no luxury of smoking, citizens have no cars (much less SUV’s) and nuclear reactors are used exclusively for bomb making and not for electric energy production. Truly, a progressive state like North Korea, devoted to the environment no matter how poor the people, must endure. North Korea is spreading the gospel of returning the entire earth to its natural state. A recent Korean Central News Agency statement was released that said if anyone messes with them "Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, once our advanced preemptive strike begins." Their nuclear program will restore the earth to a pre-mankind status. But wouldn’t a nuclear explosion spewing ashes and fire into the atmosphere be an environmentally incorrect act from the environmentally politically-correct North Korea totalitarian regime? North Korea is like a poster child for environmentalists who are glad to encourage the Communist country to keep its people in the dark for the good of Mother Earth.
The ingenious plan to extinguish the polluting fire of Hell involves boring deep into the earth and letting an ocean drain into the Hell-hole to douse the sulfuric fires. Unfortunately a schism has developed between Environmentalists and Global Warmers. Should the Atlantic or Pacific ocean be drained? Or should they go for both? A delicate balance must be achieved between doing the most damage to the United States, the evil empire, and protecting women, children, and Third World peasants. This goal of environmentalists is another ‘inconvenient truth.’ Also, should the hole to the center of the earth be dug by impoverished peasants, somewhat like a earth friendly New Deal program, or should the hole be drilled by high speed drills using modern technology? The main objection to using modern technology to drill is that there is only one corporation in the whole world that can do it - the evil Haliburton Corporation, of which the evil Dick Cheney was formerly president. The debate rages over the values of poverty for all by hand digging or of efficiency by selling out to evil Haliburton.
Look at the upside at Hell’s fire being extinguished and the draining of an ocean. Without the fires of Hell to worry about we could all live life on earth like liberals and not have to worry about the consequences in the afterlife. With the Atlantic ocean gone you could hike across the dry bed to Paris or London for the weekend but for earth friendly reasons the use of automobiles on the ocean bed would be restricted. I see a win-win situation.
Hell’s fire is to be extinguished according to an alarming news report from the environmental front. Environmentalists and Global Warming activists have discovered that hell, with its unquenchable burning sulfuric fires, is a major source of environmental pollution, second only to the automobile. Hell must go.
How did this revelation come about you may ask? Well it seems that during the recent "Earth Hour," held worldwide at 8PM on March 30th, all environmentalists, global warming activists and other assorted weirdos and wackos were refraining from all electrical use and illumination and were sitting in the dark brainstorming, insofar as possible for their types, about what major action they could take to save the earth. Because their "Earth Hour" was actually accomplishing diddly squat and since most non-believers still snicker at the new religion of Gaiaism , Mother Earthism or Environmentalism, they decided no better revenge could be had on the non-believers in the environmental catastrophe scenario than to extinguish the fires of Hell because they are a major pollutant of Mother Earth.
I know many of you may be concerned that you were not consulted in this momentous decision. Probably because at the appointed hour of "Earth Hour" you were actually using electricity to watch ‘March Madness’, play a video game or watch your favorite sit com or celebrity show on television. When is the most popular American Idol on the tube? Don’t worry it just makes you normal, a condition that drives activists nuts. "Earth Hour" is supposed to be a worldwide event, started in Australia, in which we all stop using all mechanical devises and electricity and meditate in the dark, or by candlelight, upon mankind’s despoiling of sacred Mother Earth. As you can imagine the loonier you are the more sense the idea of "Earth Hour" makes. In the U.S. major cities that participated are San Francisco, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Need I say more. So by watching television, turning on a light bulb or ignoring the whole thing you struck a blow for common sense.
The greatest successes for "Earth Hour" were in Third World countries that have no electricity or have dictators that limit the poor from using modern appliances. They are always in the dark. Some have called for North Korea to be proclaimed a ‘Hero of the Earth State’ because all citizens, except the dictator, have their electricity cut off every night at 9PM. Consider the Earth friendliness of North Korea. The people barely consume any food, their agriculture is below subsistence, there is no industrial production to emit pollutants, no luxury of smoking, citizens have no cars (much less SUV’s) and nuclear reactors are used exclusively for bomb making and not for electric energy production. Truly, a progressive state like North Korea, devoted to the environment no matter how poor the people, must endure. North Korea is spreading the gospel of returning the entire earth to its natural state. A recent Korean Central News Agency statement was released that said if anyone messes with them "Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, once our advanced preemptive strike begins." Their nuclear program will restore the earth to a pre-mankind status. But wouldn’t a nuclear explosion spewing ashes and fire into the atmosphere be an environmentally incorrect act from the environmentally politically-correct North Korea totalitarian regime? North Korea is like a poster child for environmentalists who are glad to encourage the Communist country to keep its people in the dark for the good of Mother Earth.
The ingenious plan to extinguish the polluting fire of Hell involves boring deep into the earth and letting an ocean drain into the Hell-hole to douse the sulfuric fires. Unfortunately a schism has developed between Environmentalists and Global Warmers. Should the Atlantic or Pacific ocean be drained? Or should they go for both? A delicate balance must be achieved between doing the most damage to the United States, the evil empire, and protecting women, children, and Third World peasants. This goal of environmentalists is another ‘inconvenient truth.’ Also, should the hole to the center of the earth be dug by impoverished peasants, somewhat like a earth friendly New Deal program, or should the hole be drilled by high speed drills using modern technology? The main objection to using modern technology to drill is that there is only one corporation in the whole world that can do it - the evil Haliburton Corporation, of which the evil Dick Cheney was formerly president. The debate rages over the values of poverty for all by hand digging or of efficiency by selling out to evil Haliburton.
Look at the upside at Hell’s fire being extinguished and the draining of an ocean. Without the fires of Hell to worry about we could all live life on earth like liberals and not have to worry about the consequences in the afterlife. With the Atlantic ocean gone you could hike across the dry bed to Paris or London for the weekend but for earth friendly reasons the use of automobiles on the ocean bed would be restricted. I see a win-win situation.
posted by CAROLYN at 6:43 AM
0 comments
