40th (Now 42nd) Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision

2012 is the 42nd Anniversary of the 1st Earth Day but re-posting this article from 2010 has become my Earth Day Anniversary Tradition.  So when some indoctrinated college student or old hippie corners you with their Earth Day spiel, presentation or product over the weekend and into next week, get their email and send them the link to this post. Ask Marion~

This is a great article to use when contacting your Senator and Congressman: 40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision - We can solve two problems at once. If we stop illegal immigration and cut immigration in general... We will have no need for Cap and Trade and will solve our illegal alien (Hispanic and Muslim) problems, both groups that do not assimilate and reproduce in large numbers. Just by doing this one thing we will improve the quality of life of all Americans and legal aliens.

By Roy Beck, Sunday, April 18, 2010, 7:41 PM EDT – Originally Cross-Posted:  40th Anniversary of 1st Earth Day a Grim Reminder of Immigration's Devastation of a Vision by Ask Marion on 4.23.2010

THURSDAY IS THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY -- AND A GRIM REMINDER OF HOW IMMIGRATION HAS UNDERCUT VIRTUALLY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS.

Pres. Clinton's Task Force understood it. The Father of Earth Day understood it. You and I understand it. Why does Congress not understand that U.S. environmental sustainability is not possible unless we greatly reduce immigration numbers?

What does sustainability mean? That the way we live today will not prevent our grandchildren from enjoying the same things we enjoy. The Golden Rule is at the heart of it.

Sustainability was the big idea 40 years ago when much of the nation's attention was drawn to the events and news of the first Earth Day. I was a cub newspaper reporter covering the events. And I remember well that an important theme in 1970 was that sustainability required the U.S. to begin to stabilize its population after having added the SECOND 100 million in just 55 years.

Well, now we've added the THIRD 100 million in less than the 40 years since that first Earth Day and we're on pace to add the FOURTH 100 million even faster!

Because of this massive population explosion, progress on environmental quality in recent years has stalled. The Chesapeake Bay, for example, is just about as near death today as it was in 1970.

And around 1 MILLION acres of natural habitat and farmland are cleared, scraped and developed each year just to accommodate this rapid population growth.

Nearly all of the population growth is caused by the increases in immigration that Congress ordered or allowed since 1970. For every restriction and cost that the government has put on us since then to improve environmental quality, it has negated part or all of the benefits by forcing high population growth through radically increased immigration numbers.

That is why the Father of Earth Day, Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.), made U.S. population stabilization such an important part of the teaching back in 1970 and why he spent much of the last 20 years warning of the environmental dangers of continuing our high-immigration policies.

Even Pres. Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force concluded in 1996 that the immigration increases since the first Earth Day had to be rolled back.

The Task Force was a bit nervous about taking on the immigration issues (just like most environmentalists are):

As a matter of public debate, immigration is a sensitive and explosive issue, and both legal and illegal immigration must be addressed with great sensitivity and care in order to advance the debate. We acknowledge these impediments to easy and informal dialogue, and we urge that participants take appropriate care so that a reasoned discussion of immigration and the American future can begin.

But then Pres. Clinton's Task Force stated forcefully:

We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.

Pres. Clinton had established the Task Force in 1993 to find ways "to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future."

Have you noticed that I have been quoting only Democrats?

If you are represented by Democrats in Congress, this is an especially good time to call on them to be true to their Party's long-standing "stated" commitment to environmental sustainability.

Of course, most of them don't want to deal with the inconvenient truth that the Democratic Party's insistence on high immigration to drive massive U.S. population growth is at odds with decades of acknowledgments that these policies simply cannot continue if we hope to leave any kind of natural environmental legacy to our grandchildren.

President Carter in 1977 commissioned a Global 2000 Report <-- (the original seems to have been scrubbed) which eventually concluded that the "United States should: Develop a U.S. national population policy that includes attention to issues such as population stabilization ... just, consistent and workable immigration laws."

Without all the increases in immigration, our communities would have around 250 million inhabitants right now, with little likelihood of ever going over 265 million.

Instead, because of a quadrupling in legal immigration numbers, we have more than 310 million inhabitants and are on a trajectory to cross 600 million well before the end of this century!

Obviously, the first Earth Day vision was for an America greatly different than the one we occupy today. And congressional immigration policies are the main reason that bright vision is now so murky.

This 40th anniversary is not a time of celebration but of deep sadness for the promise that was lost.

As Sen. Nelson said on the 32nd anniversary just a few years before his death:

We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people!

"This new population boom represents a PROFOUND FAILURE in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country.

"Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure.

And Sen. Nelson never flinched from naming who had caused the failure: Congress, because of its immigration policies.

I know from past experiences that many NumbersUSA members, especially in the West, do not think so kindly toward Sen. Nelson because he was the father of the Wilderness Act which they believe unfairly took huge swaths of land out of private control and use.

Our membership is divided about a lot of environmental matters. NumbersUSA does not take a position on any environmental issue other than immigration's role. Whatever your stance on various governmental efforts to combat environmental problems, we all can be united in the understanding that immigration is creating the double whammy of creating great pressures for more and more regulation to control environmental consequences while negating any positive effects.

Let's require our Members of Congress to promise not to force the FOURTH 100 million on us and our children and grandchildren.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

Originally Posted by Knowledge_Is_Power at 4:36 PM -  Thursday, April 22, 2010 

An Earth Day Tradition… George Carlin on Saving the Planet

An Earth Day tradition: George Carlin on the intellectual bankruptcy of "saving the planet"

Video: George Carlin on Saving the Planet – a few questionable words but worth the listen!

Source: Washington Examiner (link no longer active) - www.washingtonexaminer.com

Most of us do believe that it is the right thing to do to be better stewards of our Earth and to be kinder to the animals we share it with. We need to do a better job of protecting our supplies of clean water, stop massive deforestation which includes the saving species of plants that may hold huge medicinal secrets, and to move toward cleaner and a bigger tool box of energy sources. But especially after Climategate most of us do believe that turning these matter over to the government or worse yet global control is not the way to do and will devastate us financially as well as ultimately turning over huge control over our country to the UN.

A lot of what George says makes sense!!

Today’s Earth Day announcement is that Al Gore’s movie, an Inconvenient Truth, based on very questionable science is going to be shown to our children in all public schools without the opposite point of view being offered.

These kids, your kids, are being programmed daily that they are smarter than you are and that it is their job to teach their parents. Can’t get to the adults… get to the kids. Do you remember the last time these methods were used??

Please stand up, as individuals, and in your parent groups… form some if you haven’t already and stop this concept as well as the pushing of the theory of Global Warming !

40 years of predicting the planet’s imminent demise

Earth Day Predictions, from the first one in 1970….

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” -New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” -Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” -Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

It was also announced that Congress is in the process of taking over control of all water in the US. – from Rivers, Lakes, Ponds down to Puddles… our drinking water and irrigation supplies. The existing law gives then control of all navigable water ways… they are now seeking to take out the word ‘navigable’. Ask the citizens of the San Joaquin Valley in CA, who used to be the bread basket of America, how that can work out. They now live in a Federally created Dust Bowl. This is a bad thing America!!

Related:

First they Shut off Water to CA Farmers, Now the Feds Attempting to Annex ALL Water in the U.S.

Please educate yourself… Pick up a copy of: Power Grab

OIL - You better be sitting down when you read this!

OIL… And Energy Independence

As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota just 6 months ago. They sent every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota and several drivers.

They just bought two new Kenworth's to add to that fleet; one being a Tri Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it. They also bought two new cranes (one crawler & one rubber tired) for that division.

Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years.

Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps down there since there are no rooms available.

Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I checked.

See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota 's economy?

Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest.

The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.

It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana.

Check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.  Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable,   (50.3 billion barrels) at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor.  They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years", reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.'

It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota, and into Canada.

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.  Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.

However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves, and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery - Largest Reserve in the World  Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world.  It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates: 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia, 18 times as much oil as Iraq, 21 times as much oil as Kuwait,  22 times as much oil as Iran, 500 times as much oil as Yemen, and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE?  HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?

Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!  Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East , more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price even with this find?  Think again!  It's all about the competitive marketplace, it has to.

Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet?  Now, while you're thinking about it, do this: Share this. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices, by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the link below.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Cruz Construction: http://www.cruzconstruct.com/

Oil is the answer to our independence, fixing our entire economy and turning America’s decline around!!  The Republicans in Congress are trying force our Progressive Green President’s hand by adding the Keystone Pipeline Project to the tax deal presently in play.  Even many Democrats agree that the Keystone Pipeline should be approved now rather than in a year from now, as Obama has had it pushed back to, for even just serious consideration.  As the Republicans and reasonable Dems have pointed out… The Keystone Pipeline would create needed jobs, including many for military men and women who are now coming home that will increase unemployment if there aren’t any new jobs created.

Obama and his Progressive team and supporters are stealing American jobs and energy independence in the name of their ideological agenda by halting the expansion of the Keystone pipeline, in the name of their created Green energy goals. Then Obama has approved deep water drilling in The Gulf for Brazil, where were can’t drill, and will allow Canada to rapidly expand production of oil from “tar sands”, affecting our environment without any job or energy rewards and will end up turning around purchasing their oil either directly or from China, who they will be selling to.

Ask Marion~ -  h/t to Deonia Copeland

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this link to every one in your address book.

Trump to OPEC: Oil Should Be $40-$50 a Barrel. not $150

Mitt Romney on U.S. Energy & Oil Independence

GOP on Keystone Pipeline Delay: ‘Utterly Irrational’ 

Fracking Butter and the EPA’s Fracking Report

** Obama has become so arrogant that even left leaning 60-minutes edited out Obama’s laughable claim that he is the 4th best President. **

Gore tells Watergate reporter American people know nothing about Clinton White House

Bob Woodward: sitting next to Gore 'taxing' & 'unpleasant'

An interesting series of quotes came from Bob Woodward recently about Al Gore - calling the former Vice President 'taxing' and 'unpleasant' to sit next to after a recent event he shared with the VP. Even worse, Woodward admitted he asked Gore how much the public knows about what went on during the Clinton administration. The answer: 1%, a number Woodward says made him feel 'icky'. Even ickier - Woodward waited 6 years to make this information public. Glenn Beck reacts on radio today. WATCH

Video: Glenn Reacts to Woodward Comments On Gore…

Woodward is no stranger to corruption in the White House as he helped expose President Nixon’s crimes and abuse of power to the public.

The Hill reports:

In a speech at the Organization for International Investment’s annual dinner at D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Thursday, the famed Washington Post journalist, who helped uncover the Watergate scandal, disclosed that he doesn’t enjoy the former vice president as a tablemate.

…

Woodward offered up another tidbit from the conversation with his dinner companion. The investigative reporter asked the politician, more than five years after leaving office, how much the public knows about what went on during the Clinton administration. Gore replied, “One percent.”

Woodward admitted that revelation made him feel a bit icky, saying, “I kind of died inside and have to confess to having an unclean thought.”

EPA to property owner: 'Your land is our land'

At the GOP Debate last week the two agencies that got the most votes from the public and the presidential candidates to either get rid or completely or get rid of start over were the EPA and the Department of Education… and the IRS was the 3rd if you put the fair or flat tax systems in place.  Under Obama they’ve all grown and will keep growing.

$40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.

The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."

"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""

The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:

Video:  PLF Fights the EPA to Protect a Couple’s Dream

The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.

The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.

Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.

Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.

Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."

"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."

No matter, said the government. Do what we want.

So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.

Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.

The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.

The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."

"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"

The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."

"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.

Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.

"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and th restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"

The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."

"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.

"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.

"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"

The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.

"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."

The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.

"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress did intend for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the APA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."

Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."

"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.

Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.

"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.

"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."

Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."

"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."

That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.

And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.

EPAofficials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.

The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.

"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argue

Source:  WND

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

The Green Agenda… Solyndra… and the Price

Just like the view below, the American economy and way of life are casualties of the left’s Green Agenda… or will be if we don’t stop them! And Solyndra is just the latest example of the lengths the left will go to, to achieve their desired ends: the fundamental  transformation of America, global distribution of wealth and the demise of our way of life. The green agenda or Green Hell are very much part of that plan!!

Lovely Mountain View… Or It Would Have Been ;-)

Freedom Works: Every day in Washington D.C. is filled to the brim with sound bites delivered by our incompetent leaders, devoid of any facts or reason, but fit for media consumption. The Obama administration is no exception to this unfortunate, but ironclad, rule of politics. Take the predictable spiel about “green jobs,” for instance we always hear rosy scenarios of a growing green industry, flush with high-paying jobs. A solar company touted by Obama as “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism” merely a month ago has just shut its doors. Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the inefficient Department of Energy, closed shop without warning two weeks ago, ordering confused workers to vacate the premises. The unholy connections between Solyndra and the current administration, though, run deeper than a loan gone sour. Indeed, it is curious that George Kaiser, a large contributor to the failing company, was also a high-profile bankroller for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

            Dubious handouts from the government to favored businesses are nothing new, however. As many political observers of the 1980s could tell you, the subsidization of synthetic fuels was similarly a disaster. Originally an attempt by the Carter administration to promote “energy independence,” the Synfuels Corporation received a hefty $15 billion appropriation. Although it began with the noblest of intentions, it wandered from its original purpose and became mired in cronyism and corruption. High-profile resignations and repeated claims of mismanagement led Democrat Howard Wolpe to remark that, “We have created a fiscal Frankenstein that is beyond the control of the Executive and Legislative branches." Although many lawmakers may use the “job creation” line as a last ditch defense of their failed pet initiative, they fail to mention jobs that are indirectly lost. A recent study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid finds that every “green job” will result in the loss of 2.2 other jobs on average. Why is that? As the author of the report, Gabriel Calzada, explains, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices.”

            The question that naturally arises is why failure inevitably plagues government initiatives and “investments”? As we have seen in both the Solyndra and Synfuels saga, the government is more interested in promoting political ends rather than economic expansion. Whether a subsidy’s aim is to pay back a loyal supporter, or to attract more supports in the name of a vague ideal, power-plays and political considerations are the sole focus of activity. If the government were to simply yield to the private sector in matters of energy policy, America would be able to achieve “energy independence” quickly and more efficiently than it would under a stifling bureaucracy. In the case of Synfuels, even the Energy Secretary of the time admitted that "drilling in America would produce much more oil" than handing the corporation a blank check. Even today, political leaders fail to acknowledge the benefits in unleashing a dynamic free-market in the energy sector. Despite the millions of barrels of oil that could be obtained through off-shore drilling and the abundant supplies of natural gas, the government imposes a daunting regulatory approach to producing energy. Also, the government inefficiently subsidizes deep-shore drilling, which collects less oil on average and leads to the dangerous conditions present in the BP Oil Spill. These missteps, though, are merely a few of the plethora of unintended consequences that haunt every government action.

Government Picks a Loser

We now know that Valerie Jarrett, Pete Rouse Joe Biden and Obama knew there was a problem with Solyndra… if not worse. (Obama visited the facility at least twice and gave a speech from there.) 

From their own website:  Fremont, CA, March 20, 2009 – Solyndra, Inc. announced today that it is the first company to receive an offer for a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Solyndra, a Fremont, California-based manufacturer of innovative cylindrical photovoltaic systems, will use the proceeds of a $535 million loan from the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank to expand its solar panel manufacturing capacity in California.

“The leadership and actions of President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the U.S. Congress were instrumental in concluding this offer for a loan guarantee,” said Solyndra CEO and founder, Dr. Chris Gronet. “The DOE Loan Guarantee Program funding will enable Solyndra to achieve the economies of scale needed to deliver solar electricity at prices that are competitive with utility rates. This expansion is really about creating new jobs while meaningfully impacting global warming.”

But now Hillary??

Hillary Clinton and Solyndra

One of the things liberals used to say about the Obama regime was that it was squeaky clean.  We knew that was not true, but Obama seemed lucky enough not to have any scandals stick. 

Until now.

Solyndra may be a name that follows Barack Obama throughout 2012 and a name he may end up wishing he had never heard of. 

The Obama regime began hyping Solyndra as the great green hope.   Solyndra’s biggest attraction to Obama was money.  The investors of Solyndra donated personally or bundled large amounts of money for the Obama campaign.  Who needs a good business plan when you can just give money to a candidate for the Party of Treason? 

The net result was a  $535 million dollar loan guarantee to Solyndra.  While alarm bells were being rung by the government employees who actually understood what was going on, and did not receive campaign contributions, those who did receive the contributions, pushed the project. 

One email between the White House and an agency staffer said it best.  “This deal is not ready for prime time,” the email announced.

In 2010, Obama visited the plant to tout it.  Perhaps he was just looking to start lining up 2012 campaign contributions.  Joe Biden slobbered, “This is what the Recovery Act was all about!”

The warning signs were there.  Auditors who had looked at the company raisedserious concerns. 

An audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.

The auditor noted that Solyndra "has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

Why was the Obama regime so concerned about pushing this “Green company?”  It is simple.  Money.

One of the major investors for Solyndra was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire and Obama campaign contributor.  He invested only after demanding that his investment be given priority over other investors, including the government.

With Republicans in control of the House, more of the actions of the Obama regime and Solyndra are going to come out and 2012 is going to be a bad year for Obama.

With his popularity plummeting and his chances of getting anything else done growing dimmer by the day, along with his reelection chances, Obama cannot be a happy camper.  Now, he can count on hearings running through next year featuring every detail of how the regime ignored the warnings of auditors and experts and pushed this risky loan guarantee through, which will now cost the tax payers half a billion dollars.

As the Obama regime demands higher taxes, we should all ask the question, “why?”  Why do we need to pay higher taxes? So Obama can send more money to companies like Solyndra?

All of this brings us around to Hillary Clinton.

If 2012 is going to be tough on Obama, it will be the 7^th circle of hell for Hillary Clinton.

Since she was young, Hillary has always dreamed of being the first woman to be President of the United States.  She still thinks she should have won it in 2008 and in her heart thinks she should be the one running for reelection in 2012. 

Had John Edwards beat her, she would already be out there as a primary challenger to a “President Edwards.”   Unfortunately for her, Barack Obama won.

Hillary was relegated to be Secretary of State.  As such, she has had the thankless job of traveling the world and doing very little.   She is chomping at the bit to take on Obama, who she believes she can take down, but she knows she cannot.

If she takes on Obama and beats him, black Democrats will abandon her and possibly even abandon the party, creating a rift which could totally destroy the party and which would guarantee a Republican win in 2012.  Actually given the magnitude of the anticipated Republican victory in 2012, the only difference would probably be the size of the victory.

If she takes on Obama, loses and then Obama loses, she knows the Clintons will be blamed, thus destroying the Clinton legacy and still possibly splitting the Democrat Party.

In the end, she knows even if she could beat Obama, almost any Republican picked out of the phone book will be able to beat any Democrat candidate.  For Hillary, her future is simply a retirement. 

She knows it and for her, that is a worse fate for her than it is for Obama.

Related:

ABC News: Solar Scandal Threatens to Engulf White House, Impact Election

Solyndra Not the Only Company Who Benefited From Democrat Ties

Whoa… RNC: “Obama Isn’t Briefed on Loan?” – Does anybody really believe that??

Solyndra Officials Made Numerous Trips to the White House, Logs Show

Yes… Bush Administration Looked at Solyndra and Turned Them Down

Oh My Emails Show White House Knew Solyndra Was a Disaster Before It Issued $535M Crony Loan

So will it be Operations Fast and Furious/Gun Walker or Solyndra Scandal that stick to the second Teflon president.  It was a cigar and a blue dress that stuck to the 1st!

Perhaps the most amazing part of all this is that in the midst of the unfolding Solyndra scandal, the Obama administration announced this week that they plan to finalize 15 additional green projects in the next two weeks… really???

Scientist Tied to Global Warning Being Investigated for ‘Scientific Misconduct’

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

--> (Related: New study of NASA data may debunk global warming predictions) <--

On Thursday, Ruch‘s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett’s computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an “ongoing internal investigation.” Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said. Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn‘t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

Source:  The Blaze  - Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

So… What Else Do They Not Tell Us …Or Lie About?

The United Nations’ (UN) Colonization of America Fueled by Obama

 

The pith helmet is an icon of colonialism

Can you feel things intensifying? Does it feel like there’s more going on than meets the eye? The things you’ll read about in this article are out in the open – available for all to see – and their disturbing and destructive nature are consistent with the transformation we’re experiencing. Let’s first start off by calling it what it is.

Jürgen Osterhammel defined it best in Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview:

“Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.”

Research into many of the actions, goals and objectives of the United Nations (UN) and President Obama lead to one very clear conclusion…

The UN is colonizing America and Obama is aiding and accelerating that colonization.

The “distant metropolis” in Osterhammel’s description is the UN and this article exposes the correlation between the UN agenda and what is happening to America.

Why is it important to understand who and what is behind the transformation we’re experiencing? To ascertain what they have in store for us. As you will see, the goals of the “colonial rulers” (i.e. global elites) are destructive to our way of life and if they are successful, freedom as we’ve known it will be extinguished. That is their goal and it’s our job to know the enemy, raise awareness and fight back until we’re victorious.

Focusing our time and energy on politicians in D.C. is important, but knowing what’s driving them and where they’re taking us is crucial. Who is driving them? If you think it’s “We The People,” guess again. For example, we didn’t want Obamacare, yet they pushed it through. We didn’t want Obama to plunge us deeper into debt, yet he’s overspent by $5.15 Trillion in just 3 short years. To put that in perspective, it took 218 years for all prior Presidents to accumulate $5 Trillion in debt, but Obama did it in 3 years. We don’t want our children and elderly to have their private parts touched, yet our government is expanding their TSA forces with VIPR units that will operate in many venues. Consider even the smallest things we once took for granted… As kids, we used to be able to sell lemonade; kids today are being told they cannot. And the list goes on and on.

So who is driving our politicians in D.C.? The “colonial rulers” in the UN – and Obama is one of them, as were Presidents before him. What’s different now is that Obama is thrusting the globalist agenda right out in front for all to see. Previous Presidents masked their implementation of portions of the UN agenda, but not Obama.

For example, which U.S. President openly refers to us as “global citizens?” Who places international law above America’s laws? Who talks about global governance? Who openly nationalizes entire U.S. industries? Which U.S. President presided over the UN when it’s illegal to do so? Who reports a State in the U.S. (Arizona) to the UN for “human rights violations?” Who starts a war in Libya per UN direction, without any threat to American interests whatsoever, and violates U.S. law by claiming Congressional approval is not required? This list goes on and on too.

Take a look at the UN Conferences and Observances from February of 2008 at this link and notice the parallels between this and what Obama has done in the past 2½ years. Don’t let the innocent wording fool you… Try to imagine Iran or North Korea willingly addressing, funding and implementing these things in their country. America is clearly their target, the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever known. Colonize and rule over America and the rest will fall like dominoes.

Listed below are a few UN items correlated with some of what’s been happening to America in the last 2½ years.

UN Treaty on the “Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (UN resolution 62/37)

· Obama signs the New Start Treaty placing control of critical components of America’s national defense in the hands of Russia.

· Russia, China and Venezuela support Iran in their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.

· Obama releases Britain’s classified defense information.

UN “Disarmament” Week (UN resolution 50/72)

· Obama and Hillary Clinton support the UN Small Arms Treaty which jeopardizes our 2nd Amendment rights.

· Obama, Clinton and Holder devised a program (Fast & Furious) to arm Mexican drug cartels and criminals with guns from the U.S. When people on both sides of the border were killed by the cartels/criminals and the program was exposed, Obama’s minions were at the ready to decry lax gun laws in America.

UN Education for “Sustainable Development” (UN resolution 57/254) (2005-2014) and International Year of Planet Earth (UN resolution 60/192)

· Visioning Workshops are taking place in communities throughout the U.S. to solidify the UN Sustainable Development plan (Agenda 21 – their term, not ours) now that ICLEI/Sustainable Development is embedded into every local community.

· Obama enacts EO 13575 and begins buying up flooded farmland (see “Natural Fibres” below).

· At the Rio Earth Summit, Maurice Strong (UN) said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

· “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” — UN Agenda 21 (signed by G. H. W. Bush, 1992)

· “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”–Al Gore, Club of Rome executive member.

UN International Year of “Natural Fibres” (UN resolution 61/189) (2009)

· Obama signs S.510 Food Safety Act into law to take control of America’s food supply.

· Obama enacts EO 13575 to place 95% of U.S. land area (rural America) under government control (and he brings the word “fibre” into the language of the EO).

· Obama’s Federal government begins buying up farmland they flooded; George Soros is in on it.

UN International Human “Solidarity” Day (UN resolution 60/209)

· Is it coincidence that the term “Solidarity” is being promoted by Obama, his administration, Union Leaders, radical far-left groups in Wisconsin and across America and even in Egypt and throughout the Middle East?

UN “Natural Disaster Reduction” (UN resolution 44/236)

· Promoting a “global culture of natural disaster reduction – including disaster prevention” presupposes that humans have control of natural disasters. Do you find that as interesting as I do?

· DHS and FEMA happened to be in New Zealand when a major earthquake hit.

· Major “preparedness” operations occurred in many states this year, directed by FEMA.

UN International Year of “Biodiversity” (UN resolution 61/203) (2010)

· According to the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” (An estimated 6.93 billion “world society” are alive today).

· When Obama was asked, “Do you support maintaining the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act, and do you think the Act is fundamentally sound?” his answer was “Yes”.

UN “Solidarity with the Palestinian People” (UN resolution 62/81)

· Obama threw Israel under the bus when he called for a return to the pre-1967 borders – which would leave Israel unable to protect their people from the barbarians who surround them and want to kill all the Jews.

UN “Education for All” (UN resolution 61/140) and UN World Day of “Social Justice” (UN resolution 62/10) (2009)

· Under the façade of literacy, educational curriculum is focusing on the indoctrination of all children on climate change, worship of mother earth, being a global citizen and social justice. For example, Obama’s Federal Department of Education, consistent with Al Gore’s preaching, is moving forward to teach all children about climate change, instruct them to teach their parents about it, call out and ridicule “deniers” and loathe capitalism and humans as the oppressors of “mother earth.” No mention will be made of Al Gore’s private jets, SUV’s and energy-sucking mansion in classrooms throughout America.

· “Social Justice” diversity manuals have made their way into at least 13 school districts across America and 3 school districts in Canada. The manual “asserts the government and other institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people” and calls on educators to “take action for social justice.” The Omaha World-Herald states, “Only those educators who acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that ‘white’ is a culture in America and that race ‘is a definer for social and economic status’ can reach proficiency.” Those who don’t are asked what they will do “to align yourself with the values expressed… The book says teachers must overcome irrational fear of homosexuality and reject the “color-blind” approach to teaching in which teachers treat all children the same. Instead, the group identity of students of color should be recognized and esteemed, the authors say.”

Behind closed doors the UN is now planning to implement a global tax to suck more out of the pockets of Americans and into the hands of the colonial rulers.

Although Obama and his base of radical far-left comrades accuse America of colonialism and imperialism, the agenda that Obama is implementing is the UN agenda designed to overtake and rule America. Global governance, by its very nature and intent, is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of UN control over territories (i.e. countries) – and that’s “COLONIZATION.”

The cast of characters who set the agenda that Obama is imposing in the U.S. are the same “colonial rulers” who craft the UN’s agenda. George Soros, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Bill and Hillary Clinton and other Progressive global elites – including Barack Hussein Obama. They are the force behind the transformation, globalization and colonization of America.

Even Vladimir Lenin knew that it was the “colonial rulers” who were in control when he said, “The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.”

For the first time in American history, we have a President who is openly moving our country at an accelerated rate in the direction that another force wishes. That force is the UN, led by the “colonial rulers” who are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

As W. Cleon Skousen wrote in The Naked Capitalist, “Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power… It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship.”

Obama has opened wide the door to UN control of America under what these UN colonial rulers call the “New World Order.”

UPDATE:

Changing The Conversation

The Earth Charter Initiative

New World Order Or Sustainable Development? Part 1

George Hunt: Maurice Strong and Baca Ranch Land Grab

Global Scenarios for our Impending Transformation

Additional References:

1. Osterhammel, Jürgen (2005). Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. trans. Shelley Frisch. Markus Weiner Publishers. p. 16. ISBN 1558763406, 9781558763401.http://books.google.com/?id=CMfksrnWaUkC&pg=PA16#v=onepage. Retrieved 5 April 2010.

2. United Nations Conferences and Observances, UN Press Release, Reference Paper No. 47, February 2008.

3. Agenda 21 Indoctrination Going Global at Warp Speed

Excerpt:

A Green World Religion

“As documented in a recent series of reports, the sustainability doctrine is infesting all of higher education. “It emphasizes maximal conservation of resources and government regulation to the near exclusion of other approaches.”[9] Every single student must be knowledgeable and engaged in sustainability.

The analysis there of the movement emphasized its economic and political imperatives. At one level this is largely accurate. The sustainability movement is heir to the disappointments of European socialists and ex-communists. It sprang into existence in 1987 with the report of the UN Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Norwegian prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The connection to land-use planning, the commitment to extra-territorial regulation, and the readiness to by-pass democratic procedure are in the DNA of the sustainability movement. A great deal of its mischief, as in the persistently misleading pronouncements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stems from the grounding of the sustainability movement in attitudes far removed from American political and cultural traditions.

But the traction that the movement has gained in the United States doesn’t have much to do with spontaneous admiration for UNESCO bureaucrats or international elites who jet around the world promoting massive transfers of wealth to impoverished nations. Those ideas eventually find welcome in the minds of students who have worked their way deep inside the concept that they are now ‘citizens of the world.’ The movement’s mass appeal lies elsewhere.

Sustainability is first of all an emotional summons—one that combines elemental fears with hopes of salvation. It draws heavily on Judeo-Christian imagery and a secularized, but not very deeply disguised, Christian narrative of a good creation corrupted by human sin and headed for disaster, which might be staved off through sufficient acts of penitence—like giving up the internal combustion engine, not to mention bottled water and cafeteria trays.

The religious narrative is interwoven with other strands of Western mythology. It isn’t hard to find Rousseau’s imaginary picture of man uncorrected by civilization filtering into the dreams of sustainatopians. The movement expresses a longing for lost innocence, for the “re-enchantment” of nature as one of its proponents puts it, and for an easily captured high ground on which alienation from mass consumerism can be played out as though it had positive content. Somehow we can feel better about ourselves if we believe the world is going to wrack and ruin because of the heedlessness and greed of others.

And it thrives because it is a substitute religion that demands a manageable degree of expiation, self-sacrifice, and guilt.[10]

Not that any of this is anything new. The ancient agenda has always been, and will always be, the vie for total global domination. The only thing that changes is the excuse used to put fear into the population, in that they would go along.”

[9] Wood, Peter. “Tyranny or Theft? Part 2.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 16 June 2011. <http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/tyranny-or-theft-part-2/29664>.
[10] Wood, Peter. “Tyranny or Theft? Part 3.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 16 June 2011. <http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/tyranny-or-theft-part-3/29666>.

4. Omaha Schools Spend $130,000 in Stimulus Money to Buy 8,000 “Social Justice” Diversity Manuals

Friday, July 15, 2011 8:38:09 AM • by Halfmanhalfamazing • 7 replies

The Blaze ^ | July 12th | Jonathon M. Seidl

If I told you that your tax dollars (130,000 of them) went to buying a “diversity” manual that asserts the government and other institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people” and calls on educators to “take action for social justice,” what would you do? And if I told you that such a manual was required staff reading in Omaha, NE schools, what would you say? Don’t believe me? Read on to learn about “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change.” The book is a manifesto on cultural awareness. But what it…

5. Exclusive Report:

The United Nations Bans Opposition to Its Global Tax Design Meeting

by Cathie Adams
Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman

When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan “to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources,” few realized he was calling for a new global tax to be designed without public scrutiny, but that is exactly what he meant. To thwart it, the UN’s flawed process and its tax design scheme must be exposed.

The UN’s one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor. It is credulous to think that UN reforms could fix its flawed process. Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a “collaborative decision-making process” to reach “consensus” with no debate or expressed opposition. The UN calls it “global governance” and Ban Ki-moon describes how it works: “While we are all in the same boat, not all have a say in how to steer it.”

Read entire report.

By: AJ  - posted at the NoisyRoom
Hat Tip: MJ/Nancy Pletcher/Susie C.

It is time we changed the conversation and then the plan!!  M~

Obama's Green-house of Cards

Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

On Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 214 points on better than expected housing reports.

Phew! Looks like we are starting to turn things around.

But here's the one thing: We are rebuilding our economy as another house of cards on a new pile of sand.

China is now the real Bank of America, but unfortunately the only thing worse than China buying our debt, is China notbuying our debt. And that's what is happening. China has drastically cut their purchase of our bonds, which is a lot like your bank cutting up your credit card.

Yet instead of us sitting back and saying, '"Maybe this is a sign that I should start managing my finances a little better," we lie to ourselves that we just go out and find another card.

Our government has sold us the lie that spending is the same as investing and they're leading by example. A hundred billion here, 500 billion there — what's the difference? The average American now has five credit cards and the average American household has over $10,000 in credit card debt.

Even the media plays along. A recent Forbes.com article titled "10 Things to Buy Before the Economy Improves" talks about buying a house, a car, toys, diamonds, furniture, televisions and women's clothing all while prices are allegedly so low.

Yet whenever I ask the experts — economists, professors, even politicians — how we pay for all of this, I'm met with either silence or an expression that roughly translates into: "Oh silly Glenn, don't you worry, there are very smart people figuring all of that out right now."

In other words: No one has an answer. And if you think you have the answer send me an e-mail and I will give you national TV time to explain it. But man, it better make sense!

I know that people seem to think conservatives want government spending to be zero, but that's a lie. I believe in investing in America, but it has to be in projects that can reshape us back into world leaders. You want to spend a trillion on a Manhattan Project to develop a new clean, cheap source of energy? So long as that money stays here in America — sign me up.

Rupert Murdoch, the head of the company that owns FOX News Channel, recently said that we are in a time when, "nations will be redefined." I completely agree, but instead of redefining ourselves the way we did after World War II, we're running right back to the pile of sand.

The Obama administration says we are going to rebuild our economy on "green" jobs and it's not just talk. The stimulus bill has more than $20 billion for investment in a "cleaner, greener economy" and another $500 million for "green" job training. And the Obama administration is predicting it will create or save 5 million green jobs in 10 years.

Sounds terrific, until you start to look at those pesky things called "facts."

Durango, Colorado has bought all of their electricity for their government buildings from wind farms for the past two years. Problem is that it costs so much they'd have to lay someone off to stay "green." They've now gone back to coal.

Instead of blindly pouring cement into this new pile of sand, maybe we should take notice of what's happened to other countries that have tried the things we're suddenly so excited about:

"Cap and trade"? A failure in Europe.

The Kyoto Treaty? A failure almost everywhere around the world.

And "green jobs"? Well, for how that's worked out in real life, just look to Spain.

Related Articles:

• The Con Is On… Gore Tells Congress Climate Most Important Issue Ever
  
• Green Hell: Obama's Environmental Plans Will Lead To 'Energy Chaos,' Author Says

Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows

President Barack Obama exits Air Force One. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.   
 
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry. 

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain: 

"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
 
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
 
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
 
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
 
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
 
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
 
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
 
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
 
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
 
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group,  told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
 
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said.  “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
 
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
 
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”

Josiah Ryan
CNSNews
April 13, 2009