Posts Tagged ‘Environmentalism’
Sestak, Solyndra, Pigford, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, AP phone records, HHS soliciting funds, and now the revelation of EPA double standards.
With this administration it’s just one lawless scandal after another. When will the American people finally say ENOUGH!?
The IRS may not be the only federal agency singling out conservative groups. Records suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency has made it easier for environmental groups to file Freedom of Information Act requests than conservative organizations.
According to EPA records obtained by the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, since January 2012 the agency has granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 Freedom of Information Act Requests sent by major environmental groups, denying only seven of them — meaning green groups saw their fees waived 92 percent of the time.
At the same time, the EPA frequently denied fee waivers to conservative groups. EPA records show that the agency rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from such conservative groups as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, and Judicial Watch — an 81 percent rejection rate.
[...] “This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI senior fellow Chris Horner, author of “The Liberal War on Transparency.”
Horner described the EPA’s actions as “a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and “a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly.”
This kind of favoritism springs from a worldview. The EPA that authored this bias was the same EPA led by Lisa Jackson. She left office last year amid her own scandal involving the use of personal, secret email accounts to conduct agency business — the “Richard Windsor” scandal.
It’s time to ask a serious question. In light of the IRS targeting conservatives and the EPA denying conservatives at the same time, do liberals even believe that conservatives are due fair treatment under the law?
The EPA has become an unaccountable, tyrannical weapon wielded by unelected bureaucrats to abuse unconstitutional powers to advance their agenda.
It’s time for the EPA to be abolished, along with every other agency that doesn’t fall under the specific, enumerated powers granted in the constitution to the federal government.
In Europe, “green” policies to eliminate nuclear and coal power for “green” alternatives worked so well that desperate Greeks and Germans resorted to stealing firewood from local forests to keep warm this winter.
Sadly, it doesn’t appear that Obama’s nominee has learned from their mistake. He insists that skyrocketing energy prices are just what we need to force people away from fossil fuels towards a gloriously “green,” utopian future:
President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.
“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniz told the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”
Moniz position is not far from that of Energy Secretary Steven Chu before he took a job in the Obama administration. “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. Last year, gas hit $9 a gallon in Greece.
As if poor and middle class families aren’t hurting enough trying to make ends meet as it is.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” ~ Colossians 2:8
The Government has washed our nation out to a sea of debt to other nations. They have created a culture of falsely believing that all life choices should equal the same financial outcome for everyone, and that everyone who believes they are due material wealth ought to have it. Children have become an “expensive burden” we seek to avoid, but debt for personal expenditures and entitlement programs are not offensive today. The common idea is that “Children are soooo Expensive!”
In our culture, we have chosen lifestyle of debt, life-long entitlement mentality and lavish living. Frugality of past generations is largely gone. Some of the poorest people appear to be able to afford Smart Phones. Priorities are definitely skewed.
There is certainly nothing wrong with nice things, beautiful homes, etc. In fact, having ambition to succeed is inherently American. However there is something decidedly different about the last two generations of Americans. The last two generations have decided to pursue these material and temporal possessions at the expense of their children, and their eternal Christian inheritance. The other problem is that very few families can actually afford to live this lifestyle, regardless of how many children they have. Most people, right out of the gate into adulthood, begin their lives in debt. They begin either in debt themselves for college, or living a lifestyle sustained by the help or debt of their own parents.
This has left a huge societal impact, because Christian families are simply not having children anymore, because of the misguided belief that their single most important contribution to their children is what they can give to them materially speaking. With fewer Christians raising their children in an intact Christian home, fewer responsible, hard working, and freedom-loving adults are being set out into society. We can clearly see the impact on our freedoms and our government and society since the nation began forfeiting children in favor of debt.
Since this has culturally become the norm, there are several societal prerequisites to qualifying to have children. Notice none of them are of eternal benefit for others, or for ourselves. This means that what society deems of value, God has spoken and said is largely worthless..even the vast educations..etc. Again, goals and accomplishment are not worthless or evil. Parents inherently want a good future for their children, and often will sacrifice to help obtain that. However, if parents put more stock into ensuring their children have all their whims met, rather than raising solidly grounded, disciplined and responsible children, we have products of their misguided efforts abounding. The pursuit of these idols of wealth above eternal perspectives, or if they are pitted against raising any children for the Kingdom, then they limit the ability of people to raise children fully for the Lord and to stand on principle in his or her nation.
This is the sick mentality we’re dealing with, though most radical environmentalists wouldn’t dare to admit it publicly.
Well-known TV presenter and environmental activist Sir David Attenborough has a dire warning for humanity – we need to die off of our own volition or mother nature will do the job for us.
Attenborough, famous for hosting numerous nature documentaries over the span of the past six decades, told Britain’s Radio Times that humans are a plague on the earth and the only way to save the planet is to limit human population growth.“We are a plague on the earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” Attenborough said.
“Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”
Attenborough is best known for his “Life on Earth” series of wildlife documentaries, as well as for a previous statement extolling the virtues of saving the environment by eliminating people.
“Maybe it is time that instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment,” Attenborough is widely quoted to have said in a letter to John Guillebaud, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London.
Funny how none of these guys every volunteer to remove THEMSELVES from the planet in an effort to stop this “plague.” It’s OTHER people whose lives they consider disposable.
Paul Ehrlich, the doomsday biologist who coined the term “The Population Bomb” more than 40 years ago with a book of the same name, says the world now faces “dangerous trends” of global climate change and overpopulation, which threaten our extinction.
Reducing the number of people is still the answer to civilization’s woes, Ehrlich and his wife Anne wrote in anarticle published Jan. 9 by London’s Royal Society.
“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied,” Ehrlich wrote.
Ehrlich spelled out exactly what he meant in an interview with a liberal blog/news site called Raw Story.
“Giving people the right to have as many people, as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” the Web site quoted Ehrlich as saying.
“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich added.
How much you wanna bet this guy believes it’s a mother’s “right” to murder her unborn child….just not to give birth to him/her if he/she happens to expand your family larger than some bureaucrat with a god complex thinks it should be?
Of course, the “solutions” to these quacks’ anti-human hysteria involves confiscating more of your tax money to pay for other people’s abortions and population control schemes:
Little does it matter to people like Ehrlich and Attenborough that population control has usually been deeply rooted in eugenics, a science attempting to reduce “undesirable” populations, asDaniel Patrick Moloney has documented.
Nor does it seem to matter that attempts at population control have only resulted in outcomes such as China’s oppressive and coercive one-child policy, which, coupled with a cultural preference for boys, is not only decimating the country’s demographics, but causing the sex-selective abortion of millions of baby girls.
Fortunately, pro-life advocates succeeded yesterday in halting the Obama Administration’sattempt to include abortion in the list of rights protected by the United Nations. This week, we can hope they will continue to make progress toward protecting lives in the United States.
This is what Agenda 21′s “sustainability” agenda looks like in practice: destruction of property rights and the legacy of generations of rural families.
Freedom Foundation: Montana Legacy Jeopardized By Federal Overreach
View on YouTube
A rancher friend once told me he was going to live a pauper and die a millionaire. Much like him, Montana is land rich and cash poor because we’re not allowed to responsibly use our lands and resources for our own benefit. Even as we sit on unimaginable wealth above and below our beautiful landscapes, we have the second lowest wages per job on the nation. We’ve been cut off from our wealth by people who either don’t understand or don’t care about the human toll of pressing their values on Montana families.
We all want and should welcome a sustainable and diverse economy; but industries that aren’t based on some underlying value can pack up and leave overnight. A sustainable economic base must leverage the things that are unique and lasting. In Montana those things are natural resources. You can’t harvest Montana timber in Indonesia, raise Montana wheat in Australia or pump Montana oil in Saudi Arabia. They’re what we have and businesses have to come here to get them. But we’re being increasingly cut off from what makes Montana the Treasure State.
Imagine if the federal government stepped in and outlawed gambling in Las Vegas, tanning in Florida, or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Those are the local engines of economic growth. Businesses and families depend on those things to prosper and pursue happiness. But here in Montana we’re being cut off from our economic engine. It’s both unfair and unsustainable to have barriers erected by far away special interests and bureaucrats that seem to think that the families and lifestyles of those who live here are expendable.
They can do this because the federal government oversees so much of our land. Nearly 30 percent of Montana is controlled by the federal government. Getting access to those federal lands, whether through grazing, drilling, digging or harvesting is getting more and more difficult and expensive because of federal meddling in what used to be state responsibilities.
Would you expect anything less?
Tucked into the “fiscal cliff” tax package approved by Congress are billions of dollars in tax breaks that should make the new year a lot happier for businesses of many stripes, including film producers, race track owners and the makers of electric motorcycles.
In all, more than 50 temporary tax breaks were renewed through 2013, saving businesses and individuals about $76 billion. Congress routinely renews the tax package, attracting intense lobbying _ and campaign donations _ from businesses and trade groups that say the tax breaks help them prosper and create jobs.
[...] Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the package is filled with “special-interest handouts” that make it difficult for him to justify his vote in favor of it.
“It’s hard to think of anything that could feed the cynicism of the American people more than larding up must-pass emergency legislation with giveaways to special interests and campaign contributors,” McCain said.
Another corrupt Obama administration official. Another scandal the media won’t investigate or expose. Another typical day in Washington.
A key agency in the “most transparent administration in history” is being investigated for dodging potential public scrutiny and possibly congressional oversight by using bogus electronic mail accounts to conduct official business.
It involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its administrator, Lisa Jackson, the Obama appointee who has dedicated tens of millions of dollars to an “environmental justice” movement that helps minority communities get green. Each year the agency doles out cash to leftwing community groups that help poor, minority and indigenous people increase recycling, reduce carbon emissions through “weatherization,” participate in “green jobs” training and avoid heat stroke.
The thought of this major government agency conducting secret operations is downright scary not to mention illegal. But that could be exactly what’s going on at the EPA and now the agency’s watchdog is investigating at the request of Congress. In amemo addressed to Jackson and other high-ranking EPA mucky mucks, the agency’s inspector general announces its plans to begin an audit of “electronic records management practices.”
“Our objective is to determine whether EPA follows applicable laws and regulations when using private and alias email accounts to conduct official business,” the EPA Inspector General writes.
Welcome to another installment of “Bureaucrats Gone Wild.” The EPA was originally created to advise congress and enforce federal environmental laws passed by congress (which constitutes a constitutional question in itself, since environmental issues, per the 10th Amendment, belong under the jurisdiction of the individual states, not the federal government).
Now, the EPA has become a monster that continually makes up its own rules and regulations – which are never voted on by the people or their representatives – and abuses its power to control individuals and their private property. Staying warm in winter is as much a matter of basic survival as food, water, and shelter – areas where it is incredibly dangerous for government to exert control at the expense of individual freedom.
So, you’re living in Fairbanks, Alaska, and it’s 45 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. The high today will be -39 degrees below zero. The weather services all project lots more double-digit minus numbers in the coming days and weeks, with dips into the minus 50s and 60s. Heating oil prices are killing your family budget, so you crank up the wood stove and start burning some of the firewood you collected last summer. Uh-oh! Now you’re in trouble!
Yes, you’re merely trying to survive economically — along with trying to keep the wife, kids, and grandma from freezing to death. Of course, that’s not a mere theoretical possibility in these temps — but federal EPA bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., have determined that fine particulate matter (soot) in your wood smoke is verboten.
Lying low in the Tanana Valley, Fairbanks regularly experiences temperature inversions that trap smoky air over the area. That means people with respiratory problems can have more irritation from increased soot content. The federal Environmental Protection Agency’s revised fine particulate matter regulations (PM2.5) have cut the annual level of allowable fine particulates from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 12 micrograms.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough, a county area roughly the size of New Jersey with under 100,000 population, has been under the EPA gun since the agency ratcheted down its soot standards in 2008. Along with 14 other cities and 53 other counties that were not then on the EPA’s “non-attainment area” list, the Fairbanks North Star Borough is under orders to clean up its air or face fines and a “compliance plan” imposed by EPA. In efforts to meet the federal mandate, borough politicians attempted to regulate wood burning. That got citizens heated up.
“Everybody wants clean air,” state Rep. Tammie Wilson told the Associated Press. “We just have to make sure that we can also heat our homes.” Rep. Wilson sponsored a citizen initiative passed in October that bans the borough regulation of home heating devices. The borough, she said, has no business stepping in with restrictions when no one knows if they will work. “We’re still waiting here for a model, a model that shows us that if we do A, B and C, we can then get into attainment,” she said. “We have not seen anything from the borough, from the state or from the EPA showing us that that is even possible with the technology that is available to us.”
The citizens have spoken; they have told the local, state, and federal officials that they would rather not freeze to death to satisfy federal bureaucrats who are in a fretting frenzy over theoretical deaths from soot. The citizens are on firm ground, as it turns out; the “science” the EPA has based its PM2.5 standards on is shoddy at best. Like the “science” cited by alarmists who are all in a twist over global warming, the studies providing the basis for PM2.5 are based on computer models and hidden data, not actual measurements and peer-reviewed analysis.
[...] The EPA’s brazen overreach and flawed science have been flayed and exposed repeatedly (see: Here, here, and here), but the Obama administration has marched on, determined to impose its “green” agenda on the nation.
Of course, even if the people of Fairbanks were to cease all burning of firewood, there is no guarantee that they would satisfy the EPA standards. There is no viable source of energy that meets EPA approval. The EPA is down on coal and oil, and even clean natural gas, which for years was the darling energy source of the greens — until the recent natural gas boom began making it cheap and abundant.
This is what ICLEI and Agenda 21 look like when they are put into implementation at the local level.
Generated energy in Oregon could soon come from the waves of the Pacific Ocean.
The state is setting up a number of buoys along the Oregon coast in an effort to reduce the state’s carbon footprint.
Officials say large energy utility companies must generate 25% of thier energy through renewable sources by the year 2025.
Where does that 25% figure come from, you ask? From state bureaucrats who are trying to implement Agenda 21, a utopian environmentalist scheme from the United Nations.
Oddly, energy from hydroelectric sources such as the Columbia River dams are NOT counted as “renewable.” If water continually flowing down a river isn’t considered “renewable,” why would the ocean’s waves be any different?
The final product must go through a final stage but the current models suggest that one buoy would create enough energy to power nearly 40 homes.
If one buoy can only power 40 homes, how many buoys would have to choke the ocean’s surface to provide the necessary power for millions of coastal residents and businesses? How many fishing areas, recreational areas, ocean views, and natural habitats will be compromised by all these “green” buoys?
Environmentalists are willing to destroy the livelihoods of fishermen who have harvested the seas for generations. They are willing to destroy the property values of seaside residents for whom ocean views and beach access are top selling points. They’re willing to destroy local industries like tourism and sport fishing. And they’re willing to do it under the radar, where voters are given little to no opportunity to fight back.
For what purpose? To harvest expensive, financially unsustainable “wave energy” that requires enormous federal subsidies to stay afloat (so to speak). All in the name of “green energy” and “fighting global warming.”
The only “green” you’ll see will be in the pockets of those who profit from wave energy technology, while millions of seaside residents who have made their living from the ocean find their communities and livelihoods destroyed.
Unsurprisingly, local residents are upset by these developments:
Growing heartburn among Lincoln County residents has spread north to Tillamook and south to Coos Bay and beyond as more people find out about the state’s plans to remove large tracks of fishing grounds along the Oregon Coast. Tillamook residents rose up angrily Thursday to challenge what they called kicking out commercial and recreational fishing with its hundreds of millions of dollars in annual economic benefits for a few paltry electrical jobs for those monitoring offshore wave energy machines.
Besides deeply wounding the Oregon Coast fishing industry, residents charged that offshore wave energy would ruin views of the ocean, disrupt whale migrations and severely damage the coast’s tourism industry. And what really made them upset was that the Territorial Sea Plan pursued by Governor Kitzhaber’s staff and ocean policy committee, along with the State Land Conservation and Development Commission, have been putting it together largely outside of the public eye.
Lincoln County Commissioner and commercial fisherman Terry Thompson told the Tillamook County Futures Council that although the territorial sea plan, aimed at accommodating wave energy generation, has been in the making for nearly four years, a map with specific locations for offshore wave energy devices did not materialize until a few weeks ago. Thompson said it leaves the public with little time to even look it over, much less react to it or make recommendations.
Many residents told the gathering they were shocked. They called it a “rush job” based on priorities they couldn’t imagine to be so important that it would justify damaging the economy of the Oregon Coast, including general tourism, commercial and recreational fishing and local property values. “With those economic sectors hammered, the coast’s economy would collapse,” one angry resident told News Lincoln County. “And for what?” he questioned. “To line the pockets of east coast investors who would get huge federal subsidies while selling expensive electricity to California to the detriment of the Oregon Coast? This is crazy.”
If it’s successful, convenient, inexpensive, and makes our lives better, environmentalists want to kill it. They won’t be happy until we’re all back in utopian bark hut villages, walking on dirt paths, illuminated only by moonlight.
Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission voted 4-1 today to require fuel distributors to begin reporting the carbon content of car and truck fuel used in the state.
Now, the 2013 Legislature will decide whether to take the next step: Requiring those same companies to cut the carbon content of fuel 10 percent a gallon by 2025.
The “clean fuels” initiative, similar to California’s newly implemented program, favors gasoline and diesel alternatives, such as ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas and electricity. It’s aimed at curbing climate change, with transportation generating a third of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions, and at boosting in-state biofuels producers.
Opponents, including petroleum, trucking and farm groups, say it could increase gas prices and put Oregon companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Read more at the Oregonian
“A Low Carbon Fuel Standard will raise fuel costs, slow the state’s economic recovery, and create unnecessary overlap and confusion between Oregon’s existing alternative fuels programs,” cautioned Mike Salsgiver, Executive Director of the Oregon Columbia Chapter of Associated General Contractors.
“There is no doubt in our minds that an LCFS will increase the cost of fuel for Oregonians,” added Debra Dunn, President of the Oregon Trucking Associations. “Not only will increased fuel prices have an adverse impact on Oregon’s trucking industry but it will also harm Oregon’s economy as the trucking industry transports the vast majority of the freight in our state.”
A coalition has been formed to oppose implementation of these job-killing regulations:
We’ve lost 113,000 jobs in our state from 2007 through 2011. Tax revenues to fund our state’s schools and services are not keeping pace. More cuts may be necessary as the prospect for another economic downturn looms.
And yet regulators are now seriously considering emulating California’s new “Low Carbon Fuel Standards” regulations that will cost between 9,000 and 29,000 Oregon jobs, will cost Oregon families up to $1,200 per year in fuel costs, and decrease state economic activity by a minimum of $600 million.
In short, it’s another unnecessary obstacle for Oregon’s slow economic recovery.
The proposed Clean Fuel Program will only expose Oregonians to volatile price increases at the pump, additional government regulations of small businesses, and increase our already aggressive blending requirements for ethanol and other forms of bio diesel.
The power to stop these regulations rests with the Oregon legislature, which means ultimately, it rests with you. That’s why a group of fuel users, consumers and business organizations opposed to the adoption of the proposed Clean Fuels Program in Oregon has banded together to form Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy.
Four dead Americans in Libya beg to differ.
The CIA opened the Center on Climate Change and National Security in 2009 to monitor the threats posed to national security by “desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources.”
[...] While Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah are ramping up to strike Israel, while the Taliban openly mocks Obama’s capitulation in Afghanistan, and while Al Qaeda regroups in places like Iraq and Libya, our CIA is worried about a “worldwide security risk” caused by global warming.
In fact, even as the CIA reels from the scandal surrounding former director David Petraeus, an intelligence report has been released in which the agency suggests ”the U.S. develop a systematic and enduring whole-of-government strategy for monitoring threats connected to climate change.”
It’s an environmentalist wacko’s dream come true, and it will drive up energy prices, making it difficult for the poor to afford electricity and heat. Yet these are the people who claim to be the “compassionate” party of the “common man.”
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
So much for what’s left of our manufacturing. And they wonder why these industries are moving offshore?
Just in time for Halloween, a group called The Future Children Project released this frighteningly Stalinesque campaign ad of Stepford children singing about the world they supposedly live in under a Romney presidency, with “endless wars,” “poison air,” and oceans full of oil. And it’s all our fault for not voting for Obama, of course:
Newsbusters appropriately compares it to the infamous Lyndon Johnson “Daisy” ad warning of a countdown to nuclear war if he lost to Goldwater.
Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea
We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying
Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair
It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you
You did your best
You failed the test
Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!
[I]t’s one thing to write such disgusting lyrics. It’s quite another to get children to sing them.
If the folks at this agency possess such a thing, they should be ashamed of themselves for involving youngsters in this project.
Or do they believe like Goebbels did that it’s okay to involve children in spreading propaganda?
Whatever the answer, LBJ’s Daisy ad was considered so over the top that the campaign only aired it once.
How many times will Americans be subjected to this new piece of filth?
First they cut the defense budget. Now they want to convert our navy to run on a $26 per gallon fuel.
Meanwhile, China is in the middle of a massive military build-up, Russia is restarting the Cold War, and Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. Priorities??
Just when you thought the Obama administration could not do any further damage to the military that it already has, now we learn the he is forcing his “green energy” agenda upon the U.S. Navy by forcing all non-nuclear powered vessels to use “bio-fuel.”
This month, a carrier strike group that is headed to the Pacific for a six-week multinational naval exercise off the coast of Hawaii, will have its non-nuclear powered escort vessels, which include a destroyer and a tanker, use a newly formulated 50-50 mixture of standard [diesel] fuel, and a cocktail of seeds, algae and chicken fat, according toa July 2, 2012 FOXNews article.
A Navy official stated that operating the so-called “Great Green Fleet” on this blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The Navy official answered…
Investments in biofuel will produce a competitively priced — and domestically produced — alternative to conventional fuel. Such investments help the Navy and the nation become less dependent on foreign oil and thus less subject to volatility in oil prices that directly affect our readiness.
Not so fast.
What will really ‘affect the readiness’ of our Navy is it having to file for bankruptcy–because this biofuel mixture was confirmed to cost $26 a gallon–more than seven times the $3.60 a gallon cost for conventional fuel.
The Declaration of Independence made us free from European powers. Obama wants to surrender our national sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats once again, giving them the power to “redistribute” the fruits of American labor to third-world dictatorships.
A One World Socialist State is no longer just a crazy conspiracy theory…it’s the goal nearly within their reach.
It’s long past time to DEFUND the United Nations entirely of American money, and have them move their headquarters off our shores. They have become the tyrants the purport to prevent.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected. But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.
In our new book, “Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom,” Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress — only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.
(Of course, we do not believe that actual black UN helicopters will land in our midst to take over our country. But we use the symbolism to warn that the liberal, bureaucratic elites in the UN, enabled by Obama and Hillary, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence).
Here is what we say in “Black Helicopters” that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:
- A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.
- A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).
- A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN.
- Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.
- A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.
- A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.
- These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.