In 1900 “government spending at all levels (local, state, and federal) represented 7.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Out of that amount 66 percent occurred at the local and state levels. Local government spent 55 percent, state government spent 11 percent, and the federal government spent the remaining 34 percent.” Did it occur to anyone to ask; do we really need all these rules and regulations? Did it occur to anyone to ask; what would happen if these bureaucracies were eliminated and these people were fired? - Rich Kozlovich
Share This “Food for Thought” – The Death of Common Sense
Just For Fun, Popular Articles Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
A UN Handbook for World Domination: Agenda 21
In 1992, the United Nations’ Kyoto Agreement set up Agenda 21. It is a project for the removal of national sovereignty. It is comprehensive. The UN has issued a series of guidelines to implement it. The latest is the International Covenant on Environment and Development (4th ed.). It is 200 pages long. The key section is Chapter 39, on Agenda 21. If you want to know what the New World Order would like to implement, it is here. The UN has been working on this since its founding in 1945. The UN is well into the design phase of its final push, and has been ever since 1992.
German Eco-Czars Threaten To Force Home Owners To Make Costly Energy-Saving Rennovations
German daily Die Welt here reported last month how the transition to renewable energy development in Europe, particularly Germany, has not been progressing well lately.... people are realizing that the energy the sun sends for free is actually awfully expensive and inefficient.
The regulatory system designed to steer society through an energy efficiency revolution isn’t working. As a result bureaucrats are getting frustrated as their targets look less attainable than ever. Failure of their grand project is something they refuse to allow. Rather than admitting that the whole idea is unworkable, they instead think that the measures haven’t been drastic enough. Die Welt writes:
"It’s no wonder that environmental politicians are considering forcing people rather than waiting for them to volunteer. That’s why the EU Commission has proposed a directive that threatens power utilities with fines in order to get them to finance the energy saving measures of their customers. Also homeowners are once again in the cross-hairs of politicians. After all, homes are the biggest consumers of energy . Too few homeowners are thinking about replacing their heating systems or insulating their walls and attics.”
Scientists get to the bottom of what wiped out Australia's ancient gentle giants
Deborah Smith, SCIENCE EDITOR
HUMAN hunters were mainly responsible for wiping out Australia's megafauna, a study has concluded. The reasons behind the demise of the giant animals that once roamed the continent – such as rhinoceros-sized diprotodons, towering kangaroos, marsupial lions and birds twice the size of emus – have long been hotly debated, with hunting, the human use of fire, and climate change blamed……[Climate change was eliminated] The giant herbivore population crashed soon after humans arrived, with the number of spores in the sediment virtually disappearing. "So it seems that people did it."
My Take – So let me see if I understand this properly. The utopian primitives the greenies are always harping about were responsible for the elimination of a number of species; is that correct? Well, I think this certainly puts a different light on this issue, doesn’t it.
Apparently being “one with nature” made survival the driving force for their actions, and concerns for conservation took the hind most.
Let’s try and get this right….just this once….ok? The worst environmental records exist in the poorest countries. Why? Because they can’t afford the expanded environmental regulations of wealthier countries! For them survival comes first; the environment comes last.
Irrespective of the ravings of the green movement; returning to primitivism isn’t the answer. The answer is capitalism and the development it engenders. That creates the wealth that allows societies to be environmentally aware and environmentally sensitive. But let’s face it, the greenies only use this as their solution because people foolishly buy into it. The green movement hates humanity and would do anything to reduce the human population by at least four billion people, preferably more… and that is the thinking of the moderates within the movement. The rest consider humanity a planetary virus that must be wiped out. Now I ask you; does that in any way sound sane to you? If it sounds sane to you then I hope you will consider leading the way into extinction. If it doesn't sound sane to you I have to ask; why do we listen to these people?
KNIGHT: Taming the EPA monster
Supreme Court ruling strikes a blow in ongoing battle - Slowly, inexorably, the monster is being driven back to its lair. Its days of terrorizing villagers may soon be over. I wish I were talking about the federal government, but it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), better known as the Environmental Protection-or-else Agency. At one time, it was a harmless little back-alley operation that stumbled upon a secret growth formula, downed the whole vat and began wreaking havoc. You won’t find this account on the EPA’s official website, but you will find ample evidence of the monster’s ambitions to control the world, such as its quest for “environmental justice.” On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the monster right across the chops in Sackett v. EPA. An Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, were building a home but fell victim to an EPA compliance order in 2005. Their building permit was revoked after the EPA charged that they had violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their lot with rocks and dirt.
Salazar Refutes GOP Claim That Interior Dept. Favors Only Green Energy
By Christopher Goins
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar hosted an oil containment summit in Washington. … he chided congressional lawmakers about passing legislation that would make his agency increase production of domestic oil and natural gas resources… [He]dismissed allegations by Capitol Hill Republicans that the Interior Department is making it difficult for any kind of energy production in the U.S. other than for alternative energy. “The attacks we are getting are in my view being spread by the prophets of falsehood,” Salazar said… “They simply are not true. The reality of it is that we have an all of the above energy strategy that the president has spoken often about that.”…..
However, according to the Government Accountability Office, green energy projects account for 55.5 percent of federal subsidies for electricity production -- only 5 percent went to oil and gas projects…. oil production on federally owned lands has actually declined since 2010….meanwhile, that statistics from Salazar’s own department directly contradict the secretary’s comments. “The administration is trying every way they can to deny the truth and deceive the American public,” said Benjamin Cole, Director of Communications for the Institute for Energy Research. “According to the production numbers put out by Ken Salazar's own department, oil production was down 13 percent on federal lands. Offshore production alone down 104 million barrels, owing largely to the Obama administration's drilling moratorium,” Cole said.
Back to the future?
CommentsWhen a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know that something unusual is going on. What makes that 1942 case -- Wickard v. Filburn -- important today is that it stretched the federal government's power so far that the Obama administration is using it as an argument to claim before today's Supreme Court that it has the legal authority to impose ObamaCare mandates on individuals. Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn't sold, so that it didn't enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal government had no right to tell him how much wheat he grew on his own farm, and which never left his farm. But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn's farm never entered the market, just the fact that "it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market" meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market.
My Take - When insane reasoning such as this is rendered by supposedly well educated intelligent people you have to wonder just how intelligent, how well educated and how insane they are. RK
Green is Taking Us for a Ride
The environmental movement has used “green schemes”—campaigns that changed an industry or damaged the economy for naught. Three specific schemes, with a long history available, offer a glimpse of the environmentalist’s modus operandi. It is hard to imagine a bigger failure—or a greater success. If you strive for open and honest government policy that is straight forward about its goals, the twenty-year spotted owl experiment failed. If you believe the end justifies the means, regardless of the cost in life or livelihood, then it represents a great success....The public perception is that too much green is never enough. Green is the driver for American energy policy—and we’re being taken for a ride.