“Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.” 2009 World Population Report released by the United Nations Population Fund entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate.”

You had better read the above quote again.  Yes, that’s right, the United Nations sees each new birth as an emissions’ generator   This is all tied into the two most evil words we hear everyday  -  Sustainable Development.  Sustainable development is nothing more than the United Nations’ way of controlling the  world and its population under the guise of saving our environment and planet.

The United Nations actually sees human beings as being bad for the earth and so the human population must be controlled.

This is why Nancy Pelosi,  Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of their despicable ilk, pushed and defended Planned Parenthood clinics with a ferocity that we had never seen before.

Ask yourself the question, “If God didn’t see human beings as being bad for the earth, then why do we fall for this insane propaganda that the United Nations is spewing out of its hateful mouth?”

It saddens me to know that my own county,  has fallen for this Sustainable Development and Carbon Footprint rot.   Look-up your own county government website and I’m sure you will see all kinds of information on Sustainable Development and even how your county has pushed this slime,  into the public schools to further indoctrinate our children.  My county even celebrates Earth Day and the Earth Day Flag.  Did you know that Earth Day is also Lenin’s birthday?  The link I just referred you to is located on David Horowitz’ website,  FrontPageMag.  David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. Mr. Horowitz’ was a red-diaper baby and he understands what governmental control is all about.   Both of his parents were members of the Communist Party of America.  Horowitz totally rejects Marxism today but he is an expert on what Marxism stands for – control of human life.

We need to understand that our local, county, state and federal officials have fallen hook, line and sinker for this mantra of SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, a really, really nice name for population, education and land control.  The same thing holds true for our educators. My guess is that none of these people have done their due diligence to find the genesis of  this environmental “garbage”  mantra.  All they know is that it sounds and feels good, so they are willing to go with it. They are the “useful idiots” in our society. They are being used to spew this claptrap over and over again, until we believe it, until we fall for it.  Afterall, don’t we want to save our environment?   By the way, is it any wonder why our children’s test scores are in the tank compared to children from other countries. Our teachers are too busy wasting their time, unkowningly teaching this nonsense, which ultimately leads to teaching children that there are way too many people on this earth.

Ponder this quote for awhile:  “Women have a vital role in environmental management and development.  Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.”  This quote is Principle 20 which is located in the United Nations’ The Rio Declaration, the brainchild of sustainable development. These “power-control-creeps” have put total responsibility of population control on women’s shoulders.  This is why our society has been, “chickified” but that is a topic for another day.

Here is something else for you to ponder.  Did you know that known Communist, Alger Hiss, served as the first acting Secretary General of the United Nations.  He was later found guilty of perjury relating to statements he made about his Communist activities and susequently jailed.   Also, sixteen out of seventeen individuals with whom Hiss worked in planning the creation of the U.N. were also Communists.  You should see a certain agenda developing here – Communist control.  Commentary by Dottie MacQueen

For a fuller understanding of the celebration of this dubious holiday, “7 Billion Day”  and sustainable development, read the following article presented by the website, New American.

(New American) – According to the United Nations, the earth’s population will reach seven billion by October 31. For the world body, however, that is not something to celebrate. In fact, the UN Population Fund is focused on ways to decrease the world’s population, and has selected October 31, “7 Billion Day,” as a day to raise awareness about “sustainable development.”

The United Nations has openly proclaimed that the world’s increasing population is a cause for concern. Likewise, the UN has advocated for its Agenda 21 program that seeks to bring about “sustainable development.”

On February 10, The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21:

The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is yet another means to achieve ultimate control. Additionally, as noted by LewRockwell.com, a key component of Agenda 21’s sustainable development is population control, since Agenda 21 seeks to achieve reduced consumption, social equity and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Proponents of Agenda 21 and sustainable development believe every societal decision should be based on environmental impact, including land use, education, and population control.   Continue reading…

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Taking down Agenda 21 can be done in communities across our nation.

(Virginia Right) – Tea Party = 1, Middlesex Board of Supervisors = 0

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting the vote was unanimous to delay until November 1 taking action on a resolution to approve/disapprove the Regional Water Supply Plan.

The proposed Water Conservation ordinance went down in flames–it was very poorly written (came verbatim from the Middle-Peninsula Planning Commission).  A revised ordinance will be given at the November 1 meeting.

I am attaching copies of my testimony on the Plan and the ordinance.   I’m also attaching my husband’s testimony on the Plan.

It was obvious most (if not all!) of the supervisors had not read the Water Supply Plan.  Nor were they aware of what the ordinance was about.  Even Carlton Revere was surprised and expressed his disfavor with making law enforcement personnel “water leak police”.  Attorney Soberick actually suggested to the supervisors that they didn’t have to approve the Plan because it didn’t appear to him to be mandated that all the counties and localities within the Planning District had to adopt it.  Clara Meier, a planner with the MPPDC who gave a brief overview of the Plan and discussed the ordinance with the supervisors, politely disagreed (well, actually I’m not sure she knew whether by not adopting the Plan it would place Middlesex County in an unlawful or untenable position…I felt she was telling the supervisors more than she actually knew).

Next step:  The Board of Supervisors agreed last night to accept WRITTEN comments about the Regional Water Supply Plan prior to their Nov. 1 meeting.  Acting Chairman Wayne Jessie said Public Hearing on the Plan was over.  I can’t imagine there won’t be a Public Hearing on the revised ordinance, however.  I believe that is required by law.  If you are willing, you can write to each supervisor with your concerns and/or send a Letter to the Editor of the Sentinel.

Continue reading…

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

(FOX Business) – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy on Sunday just a year after the energy  storage company received a $43 million loan guarantee  from a controversial U.S. Department  of Energy program.

The move comes about two months after solar panel  maker Solyndra also filed for bankruptcy, setting off criticism of the government loan  program.

The department guaranteed $535 million in loans to  Solyndra, and Congress is investigating whether political influence played a  role.

Beacon Power used the government-guaranteed-loan to  build a 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York.

The company said in documents filed with Delaware’s  bankruptcy court that it had $72 million in assets and $47 million in debts.

The case is Beacon Power Corp, U.S. Bankruptcy  Court, District of Delaware, No. 11-13450.

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Keep up the great work, Glenn!

(The Blaze) – Glenn Beck’s 1791 clothing line—launched only three weeks ago—is shattering what were already optimistic sales projections, giving the manufacturer a mandate not only to ramp up production but also to hire more employees.

“We will be adding two more staff members in the near future to accommodate what is clearly a consistent demand of the Glenn Beck line,” said Cara Aley, American MoJo president and COO. She’s “confident that this number will grow quickly in the coming months, and well past the holidays.”

One gangbuster sales example so far is the zip-up jacket, which is selling 50% better than anticipated, Aley noted: “Winter is coming, after all!”

Continue here for entire story.

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

POISON!

Nothing good will come out of Washington D.C. until the swamp there is drained.

(CNSNews) – Mark Levin says House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) set out to “poison” newly-elected Tea Party-elected congressmen – and succeeded in robbing two-thirds of them of their conservative values.

Yesterday, while discussing a CNSNews.com report of Boehner’s saying he won’t rule out support of a balanced budget amendment that allows unlimited federal spending – and that doesn’t require a super-majority vote to hike taxes to pay for that spending – Levin said:

“As soon as a number of these Tea Party-elected conservatives went to Capitol Hill, Boehner made it his task to take as many as he could under his wing, and to poison them. To poison them with the inside-the-beltway, establishment, old bull, RINO mentality.”

“And, he succeeded with about two-thirds of them,” Levin said. “The only way conservatives in the House are going to make progress is if there’s new Republican leadership.”

Levin warned of what’s to come if Boehner accepts an amendment that doesn’t restrict spending and tax hikes:

“We don’t want a different kind of balanced budget amendment. All that means is massive tax increases. That’s all that means.”

A balanced budget amendment without spending and tax restrictions will be easy for Boehner to pass, because it plays right into the hands of tax-and-spend Democrats, Levin says:

“Otherwise, every liberal in the world will support this balanced budget amendment, because what it means is massive tax increases of every type.”

And, this wouldn’t be first time Boehner’s struck a bad deal, Levin notes:

“The legislation to increase the federal debt limit – that Boehner negotiated – requires both Houses of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment, but, doesn’t specify what type.”

“Once again, Boehner out-negotiated,” Levin said

Levin concluded by warning that, if Boehner goes along with Democrats, it’ll spell disaster for the country: “That’s not a balanced budget amendment; that’s a suicide amendment.”

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

“Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” - Barack Obama, January 17, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle

COMING SOON TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  -  We may not have a “cap and trade system” in the U.S. but we do have the Environmental Protection Agency – they are one in the same!

ARE WE AWARE YET?

(Institute for Energy Research) – Fuel poverty in the United Kingdom is defined to be when a household spends 10 percent or more of median household income on energy for heating, hot water, lights, and appliances. According to official UK government figures, one in five households (5.5 million households) was affected by fuel poverty in 2009.[i] While the 2010 figure is expected to remain the same, the 2011 figure could be as much as one million households higher. Further, predictions indicate that the average UK household could face fuel poverty by 2015.

One of the major factors behind increasing fuel poverty in the UK is government policies instituted to meet carbon stabilization targets, the most aggressive in the world. Britain has a legally binding carbon dioxide reduction target of 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. As a result of current measures and increasing fuel prices, industrial electricity prices in the UK are already among the highest of any industrialized country in the world.[ii]

Current Statistics

The average annual bill for a customer using electricity and natural gas is about 6 percent of median household income now, up from 3.3 percent in 2004. Since 2004, the cost of energy in the UK increased by 117 percent–more than six times faster than UK household income (which only increased by 18 percent since 2004). If these trends continue, energy’s share of median household income in the UK will reach 7.4 percent by 2013, 8.2 percent in 2014, and 10 percent in 2015.[iii]

The data show that the majority of households in fuel poverty in the UK contain “vulnerable” individuals, defined by the government as elderly, disabled, the long-term sick, or children. According to Age UK, the UK’s largest charity for older people, almost half the people living in fuel poverty were over 60. Michelle Mitchell, the charity director of Age UK, said: “Research shows many older people are forced to choose between eating and heating their homes, causing illness and in extreme cases, needless deaths.”

Continue reading…

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

To the pooh-poohers out there who think that destroying the Electoral College without a Consitutional Amendment is impossible, I beg to differ.

The highly regarded conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, found it necessary to write the following article on how this could possibly happen.

In fact, The Heritage Foundation refers to the National Popular Vote (NPV)  as a ‘dangerous cartel.’

Hillsdale College is also hosting a webcast from its own Kirby Center in Washington, DC on November 4, 2011 regarding this same issue.  Please refer to my next post for all of the details.

(Heritage.org) – Since the 2000 U.S. presidential election, there have been many ill-informed calls to abolish the Electoral College. Even before that contentious election, there had been more than 700 proposals introduced in Congress to amend the Constitution to change the Electoral College—more than on any other topic.[2]
The latest scheme, the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan, is bad public policy. The NPV plan would:

 

• Diminish the influence of smaller states and rural areas of  the country;
• Lead to more recounts and contentious conflicts about the results of presidential elections; and
• Encourage voter fraud.

The NPV plan also strikes at the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic—one in which popular sovereignty is balanced by structural protections for state governments and minority interests.

The Electoral College and the NPV

The Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”[3] Although electors were initially appointed directly by state legislatures, some states like Pennsylvania andVirginia allowed popular election even in the first presidential election.[4]

By 1836, only South Carolina did not provide for the direct election of electors, and “since the Civil War, electors have been popularly chosen in all states.”[5] The slate of electors chosen by voters then cast their votes for President and Vice President in their respective states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.[6] Forty-eight states have a winner-take-all system that allocates all of their electoral votes to whatever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in that state.[7]

Changing or eliminating the Electoral College can be accomplished only by an amendment to the Constitution, which requires the consent of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.[8] From a political standpoint, there is almost no probability that such an amendment will be approved in the near future.

Consequently, the NPV[9] scheme proposes an interstate compact in which participating states agree in advance to automatically allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, disregarding the popular vote results in their states or what the relevant legislatures might then desire. The NPV would “put the fate of every presidential election in the hands of the voters in as few as 11 states and thus…give a handful of populous states a controlling majority of the Electoral College,”[10] undermining the
protections of the Electoral College.

This agreement would go into effect only after “states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes” needed to win an election (270 votes) join the purported compact. Because it is far easier politically to get a smaller number of states with the required electoral votes to join the compact than it is to get two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to pass an amendment, the compact is an expedient way for proponents of the NPV to circumvent the Electoral College without formally amending the Constitution.

So far, eight states representing a combined 132 electoral votes (Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, California, and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia have approved the proposed scheme. The NPV is therefore 49 percent of the way to the goal of 270 votes—and to the activation of this unconstitutional, politically dubious, and dangerous cartel.   Continue reading… ( The red highlighting is my emphasis.)

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Go to this link if you wish to sign-up for the webcast on November 4, 2011 regarding the attack on our electoral college  - (kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu).

John Fortier
Bipartisan Policy Center

November 4, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
The Kirby Center

Proponents of ending or bypassing the Electoral College say that the Founders’ mode of presidential selection is outdated.  With the National Popular Vote gaining momentum, the Electoral College is once again under serious attack.  What would the success of this movement mean?

John Fortier is director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center.  Previously he was a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he also served as the principal contributor to the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and the executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission.  His books include After the People Vote:  A Guide to the Electoral College, and he has been a regular columnist for The Hill and Politico.  He received his B.A. from Georgetown University, his Ph.D. in political science from Boston College, and has taught at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Delaware.

(The red highlighting is my emphasis.)

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

OBAMACARE, CARE FOR ALL!  Well, not quite.

(WashingtonExaminer) – Whatever the disadvantages of the new health care law,  Obamacare proponents appeared to be on solid ground when they said that it would  extend affordable health insurance to millions of Americans.

No longer.

At yesterday’s hearing of the health subcommittee of  the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Cornell University  economics professor Richard Burkhauser showed that in 2014, millions of  low-income Americans may be unable to get subsidized health insurance through  the new health care exchanges.

It’s true that under Obamacare, firms with more than  49 workers have to offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time  employees or pay a penalty. But the coverage only has to be for an individual  policy, not a family policy.

And what most people don’t know is that if a worker  receives coverage for a single person from his employer, his family will not be  able to get subsidized health insurance coverage under the exchange.

This is because, if one member of a family receives  employer-sponsored health insurance, other members of the family cannot receive  subsidized coverage under the exchange.

Other family members would have to purchase full-price  health insurance, which would be prohibitively expensive for those at low  incomes, those who are supposed to be protected.

Burkhauser testified that, for a four-person family at  133 percent of the poverty line earning $28,000, purchasing a family health  insurance plan would cost 43 percent of family income, without government  subsidies.

If that family earned $53,000, reaching 250 percent of  the poverty line, the plan would cost 23 percent of their income.

About 13 million dependents of workers with single  coverage would potentially be affected, according to Burkhauser. That’s 26  percent of the estimated 50 million uninsured workers.

This perverse incentive has a number of consequences,  none of them foreseen by Obamacare architects.  Continue reading…

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

As it turns out, there are some news people in the progressive mainstream media who actually feel compelled to tell the truth about progressives and their destructive ways.