Pizza Shop Worker Loves Seattle’s New $15 Minimum Wage, Until He Finds Out That It Cost Him His Job

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

z-pizza-min-wage
Former pizza shop worker Devin Jeran, thanks to new $15 min wage law in Seattle

Hat/Tip to Ashley Dobson at RedAlertPolitics.

Fifteen bucks an hour? Score!!!!

Then reality sets in…

Pizza shop worker Devin Jeran was excited about the raise that was coming his way thanks to Seattle’s new $15 an hour minimum wage law. Or at least he was until he found out that it would cost him his job.

Jeran will only see a bigger paycheck until August when his boss has to shut down her Z Pizza location, putting him and his 11 co-workers out of work, Q13 Fox reported.

He said that while the law was being discussed all he heard about was how the mandatory minimum wage increase would make life better for him, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

“If that’s the truth, I don’t think that’s very apparent. People like me are finding themselves in a tougher situation than ever,” he told the TV station.

Owner Ritu Shah Burnham said she just can’t afford the city’s mandated wage hikes.

“I’ve let one person go since April 1, I’ve cut hours since April 1, I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she told Q13. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit, there’s no other way to do it.”

Small businesses in Seattle have up to six more years to phase in the new $15 an hour minimum wage, but even though she only has 12 employees, Z pizza counts as part of a “large business franchise.” As a result, she is on a sped up timeline to implement the full raise.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

“I know that I would have stayed here if I had 7 years, just like everyone else, if I had an even playing field,” she said. “The discrimination I’m feeling right now against my small business makes me not want to stay and do anything in Seattle.”

Shah Burnham said that she is “terrified” for her employees after she closes up shop.

“I have no idea where they’re going to find jobs, because if I’m cutting hours, I imagine everyone is across the board,” she said.

The organization that pushed for the higher minimum wage, 15 Now Seattle, wouldn’t comment directly on the closing to Q13 and didn’t offer any sign of sympathy.

“Restaurants open and close all the time, for various reasons,” Director Jess Spear said.

Watch Q13’s story below:


.

.

.

 

Share

One Chart Disproves Obama’s Claims That He Is A “Deficit Cutter” – Who Made The Chart? Obama’s Federal Reserve…

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

FRED Chart 001

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Just a few short days ago, President Obama uttered these words in his 2015 State of the Union speech:

At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years.

Now I won’t spend time debunking the four lies he told in that short excerpt, instead let’s look at just his claim that he’s a “deficit cutter” in this great article from over at Doug Ross’ place:

ONE CHART IS ALL IT TAKES: The Ludicrous Claims of Obama as a “Deficit-Cutter”

Oh, and did I mention the chart itself comes from the Obama Federal Reserve?

Put simply, any claims linking President Obama to fiscal responsibility are somewhat akin to using Michael Moore as a spokesperson for Jenny Craig.

By the time this walking economic catastrophe has left office, the total federal debt will have doubled. All of the debts rung up in all of American history will have doubled in eight short years.

Every governmental oversight office — from the CBO to the GAO — is warning that the debt is “unsustainable”. Interest payments on the debt will double in just the next five years, from $266.7 billion currently to $578.3 billion in 2020. And the Obama administration’s forecast shows interest payments rising to $785 billion per year by 2025.

And let’s not forget Obama’s failure to even talk about the looming entitlement crisis.

The system is headed for collapse. And Obama has only added fuel to the fire.

.

.

.

Share

Rutgers Pollsters “Stunned” American Workers Don’t Believe The Recession Is Over

Share

sluggish economy
Obamabot shibboleths meet Reality. Reality wins.

This weekend, American workers will take part in a time-honored tradition, gathering around picnic tables and barbecue grills to talk shop.

A new Rutgers University report on the American workforce in the aftermath of the Great Recession gives them plenty to discuss.

American workers are “insecure, underpaid, highly stressed, and generally unhappy at work,” researchers found.

The report, “Unhappy, Worried, and Pessimistic: Americans in the Aftermath of the Great Recession,” details the results of a national survey conducted by the school’s John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. Researchers at the university have been taking stock of public perception on the effects of the recession since it ended in 2009, and honed in on the American workforce ahead of Labor Day weekend.

“We tracked people through the recession and never found light at the end of the tunnel,” said Cliff Zukin, a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers and one of the authors of the report. “The image of the American worker, I think, stunned us.”

It’s only stunning if you’re living in an Obamabot, MSNBC, New York Times bubble. Here in the Real World, the recession did not “end” in 2009, no matter what the White House and the Democrats want you to believe.

Europe is in the midst of a full-blown depression, while inflation is eating our lunch.

And it must be the prospect of more snow that led to the CBO “revising” its 2014 economic forecast downward. A lot.

CBO has lowered its projection of real growth of GDP in 2014 from 3.1 percent to 1.5 percent, reflecting the surprising economic weakness in the first half of the year.

Surprising, stunned, it’s always unexpected when things don’t go the way Obama said they would. Because the force of his words is supposed to move mountains, slow the rise of the oceans, and heal our planet economy.

C’mon Rutgers, who you gonna believe? Obama? Or your lyin’ eyes?

Share

The Golden Years Of Retirement Are Becoming More Illusive In This Regulatory Nation

Share

The evidence is piling up that pre-baby boomers and the older baby boomers lived through the best time in America’s history if measured by the success rate in living the American dream and being able to comfortably retire while they still enjoyed good health ( often at ages 58 to 60). This article at Zero Hedge reports on a recent Gallop poll showing the average retirement age has hit a record high. Take a look at this graph. It shows in grey the increase in the workforce of people over 54 starting in 1999 to 2013 and in red the same information for those under the age of 55.

cummulative workers added
The Gallop poll asked the question; At what age do you expect to retire? Here is the result.

gallup retirement
The article seems to put the fault for this situation directly on the worker by pointing out:

… the typical worker near retirement only has about 2 years of replacement income saved, or about 15 years short of the median lifespan post-retirement.

This humble observer of the asylum we all have live in doesn’t dispute that Americans in general have been poor savers. But, Asylum Watch believes that the fiscal and monetary policies of our federal government have made it hard for the American worker to save. Monetary policies have always been set to be at least slightly inflationary and inflation is always higher than our government claims it is. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the Fed’s Quantitative Easing Policy include keep interest rates near zero (ZIRP).  ZIRP punishes savers and encourages taking on debt. And then, there is fiscal policy that adds to the cost of living of the American worker. For example, President Obama is keeping his promise to make electricity cost  skyrocket through government regulations. Let’s talk about the hidden costs of government regulations because America, if anything, is a Regulation Nation.

From this Wall Street Journal On-Line article we learn:

Congress may be mired in gridlock, but the federal bureaucracy is busier than ever. In 2013 the Federal Register contained 3,659 “final” rules, which means they now must be obeyed, and 2,594 proposed rules on their way to becoming orders from political headquarters.

The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the fourth highest total in history. That didn’t match President Obama’s 2010 all-time record of 81,405 pages. But Mr. Obama can console himself by noting that of the five highest Federal Register page counts, four have occurred on his watch. The other was 79,435 pages under President George W. Bush in 2008.

The one growth industry in America is the government regulatory bureaucracy. The author of the WSJ article points out that  politicians and the media treat regulation as a largely cost-free public good. Many regulations, of course, are necessary and are for the public good; but they are definitely not cost free. The regulatory cost burden on businesses in America have to be covered one way or another. Most of the burden falls on the middle class. As corporate CEO’s and business owners watch their regulatory compliance cost go up, they naturally look for ways to reduce other costs. They hire fewer workers. they reduce wage increases, and they invest in automation or software to reduce the number of workers. As a result it is more difficult for people to break into the middle class, opportunities to progress for middle class workers are fewer and, saving for retirement is harder, Regulatory costs may be one of the highest taxes paid by the middle class.

The quality of life of America’s middle class was once the envy to the world. To a large extent it still is. But, this New York Times article informs us that things are changing:

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

When will middle class Americans figure out that they can’t afford this nanny government of ours? That shinning city on a hill is looking a bit run down.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Share

Glenn Beck on Agenda 21

Share

Glenn Beck has some rather well made, and very creepy, commercials on Agenda 21.  Take a look for your self…

There are a number of links on the site regarding Agenda 21, I’ll be posting a compilation later.  Let’s just say that you ought to know what Agenda 21 is, and how it will one day affect you.

Share

Equalizing Outcomes “Obama Style” Think Sustainable Living ala Agenda 21

Share

The closest thing to work Barack Obama has ever done was when he was a “Community Organizer” in Chicago. If he is reelected, he plans to capitalize on that experience.

I came across a very scary National Review  article that was reblogged at John Malcolm’s place. And, I thank him. The NR article is by Stanley Kurtz and is an adaption from his book  Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.

Have you ever heard of the concept of “regionalism”? I vaguely recall reading that term in some research I did a while back on Agenda 21. Mr. Kurtz explains that Obama learned to embrace regionalism from his Chicago community organizing mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation. “Regionalism” is the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. Kurtz says that the relationship with his community organizing mentors continues to this day.

The alliance endures. One of Obama’s original trainers, Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Gamaliel’s anti-suburban crusade under another name. Kruglik and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, intellectual leaders of the “anti-sprawl” movement, have been quietly working with the Obama administration for years on an ambitious program of social reform.

But, how could this possibly be pulled off?

One approach is to force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and by discouraging driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees, and regulations. Step two is to move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs. Step three is to export the controversial “regional tax-base sharing” scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities.

[…]

The centerpiece of the Obama administration’s anti-suburban plans is a little-known and seemingly modest program called the Sustainable Communities Initiative. The “regional planning grants” funded under this initiative — many of them in battleground states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohio — are set to recommend redistributive policies, as well as transportation and development plans, designed to undercut America’s suburbs. Few have noticed this because the program’s goals are muffled in the impenetrable jargon of “sustainability,” while its recommendations are to be unveiled only in a possible second Obama term.

Long time followers of Conservatives on Fire know that I am supporting Mitt Romney; but he was not was not the person I wanted to be our candidate for President. I do not agree, however, with my libertarian friends that Romney would be as bad or worse than Obama.Romney may not be a conservative but we know that he bends like a reed in the direction the wind is blowing. Our job is to make sure that wind is blowing  from the Tea Party members of the House and Senate. We need to elect more Tea Party candidates this election cycle and again in 2014 and 2016 and etc. If we can elect enough conservatives to the House and Senate, Romney will willingly move in their direction. Obama must be defeated!

On a side note, I was talking the other day with my sister, whom I love dearly. She is five years my senior, she is a widow, and she has a steady boyfriend who is in his eighties. She and her boyfriend both live on UAW pensions and Social Security. They are both life long Democrats but both totally disengaged from politics. Because I know my sister always votes straight Democratic ticket, I never talk politics with her. But, this time I decided to tease her a little bit and I asked her how she was going to vote this election? Her response was that she didn’t even know who was running but that she would vote Democrat as usual. So, I said: “You are going to vote for Obama again?” Her answer was very interesting. She said: “no, no, no we are not voting for Obama. He has lost our votes.”  What this means is that my sister and her boyfriend will vote for every Democrat on the ticket in Michigan but they will not vote for Obama. They won’t vote for Romney either. And, I’m thinking there may be a lot of Democrats like my sister and her boyfriend. I hope so!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Remember When Commies Were Called Reds? Now Their Favorite Color Is Green

Share

To me the words communist and socialist and liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Most progressives/liberals are offended when referred to as socialist and even more so when referred to as communist. I don’t do it to offend those on the left. I do it because there is no other end for their agenda than extreme socialism or communism. In this day and age, their agenda is not for the state to take over all means of production via expropriations, ala Chavez, but to gain effective control of the means of production through regulatory law and crony socialism. Yes “crony socialism” and not crony capitalism as so many have erroneously called it.

The biggest socialist/communist organization in the world, also known as the United Nations, went “green” almost twenty years ago as the primary means of promoting their world-wide socialist agenda for wealth redistribution. Their principle and most effective weapon is their Agenda 21 plans for the world, which relies heavily on environmental policies to eventually gain total control of land and water and, thereby control over all of humanity. I don’t know how successful they have been in other countries but they are making great strides here in the United States. They are so proud of their green socialism; Ban Ki-Moon and the UN Security Council are thinking about changing their blue helmets for, you guessed it, green helmets. (Source)

The UN’s Agenda 21 policies were unconstitutionally introduced into America by Bill Clinton. Because the UN is not popular with many Americans,  the progressives in our government don’t use the name Agenda 21. They have been very creative in coming up with more palatable names such as Smart Growth and Sustainable Living and many others. But what ever they call it, the goal is the same. Under the guise of protecting the environment, the government is instituting incremental socialism by placing more and more restrictions on land use and water use while at the same time hindering the development of cheap fossil fuels for energy production. Incrementally, Americans are being forced to lower their standard of living.  Incrementally we will forced to live in less and less space, to consume less and less energy and food,  and through restriction on the use of ever-growing “public” lands our ability to move about states and our country will be restricted. I am not touting some conspiracy theory folks. This has been going on for years now and under the Obama regime it has picked up speed.

For most of the last eighteen years, implementation  of  Agenda 21,  via Smart Growth plans and Communities for Sustainable Living programs, have focused on urban areas. But now, under  Obama , more emphasis is being directed at rural America.  Remember the Food Safety Modernization Act passed last year? If not, please Google it.  And, recently President Obama created his White House Rural Council.  And now we learn tha the Department of Transportation (DOT)  is writing regulations to force all operators of farm equipment to have a commercial drivers license. Bob Mack of the Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead blog has an excellent post today that touches on these issues.

But there is more! Listen up those of you who like to hunt. You are about to be pissed off. Obama is now using the USDA, the Forest Service and the BLM to restrict your access to public lands that you have hunted for years. The PPJ Gazette has the story. Read it and weep!

Folks, a coup d’etat is taking place in America and the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Communist are the only ones aware of it. The rest of us are lost in our blissful ignorance. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

When It Comes To Energy Policy, The Lunatics Are Running The Asylum

Share

There is no end to the number of hot topics buzzing around the blogosphere lately, Included among those hot topics is the issue of our “Energy Policy” or lack there of. I too have written on this subject numerous times. And, I feel compelled to do so again. First, with your indulgence, allow me to do a little ranting and raving and then I’ll get to the point of today’s second post.

Ever since the oil embargo of the 70?s, it seems to have been impossible for the United States to come-up with a coherent energy policy. Some say that Big Oil didn’t want an energy policy and they used their influence to make sure it didn’t happen. I don’t know if that is true or not. All I know is that we have never had an energy policy worth speaking of and the current administration is possibly the worst of all.

Since the day Obama took office, he has made it clear that the big oil companies were his enemy of choice. His support for and subsidies to inefficient high cost renewable energy projects that benefit only his friends at taxpayer expense is well-known. He has put moratorium on oil drilling in the most favorable target areas as well as road blocks to the development of gas shale and oil shale.and, he has withdrawn millions of acres of land from public access And then, this Nimrod we call president had the brass to stand-up at a news conference the other day and announce that he has ordered his agencies to investigate oil companies for not drilling on lease that they have. Hey! Mr. President! I have a tip for you. Pick-up your phone and call the heads of these companies that are not drilling ans ask the what the problem is. You might just learn something. You might find that you could use your good offices to help get the drills working. But you don’t want to do that, do you Mr. President. No. You have a different agenda. You know that high gasoline prices are going to hurt your chances for reelection. So you have to find a way to deflect the blame, don’t you? You,sir, make me sick!

Okay. I done ranting and raving and I feel better. I know that nothing I said was news to you so thank , dear reader, for your indulgence. I’ll now get to the subject of today’s post.

With all that is going on in the world, you may have missed this bit of news related to the issue of energy. Penny Starr writing for CNSnews has the story.  It seems there has been a major project, the Keystone XL Project, in the making for a few years to construct a very large oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to US refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. This multi-billion dollar project and the thousands of jobs it would create just can’t seem to get all the permits it requires to get started. Penny tell us, as expected, the oil and gas industry is very much in favor of this project. Here are a couple of interesting snips:

”Keystone XL is a shovel-ready project that is funded completely by private sector investment at no cost to American taxpayers,” Girling said. “It will be a safe, modern and leading-edge pipeline and we have provided the Department of State and other agencies with the facts regarding Keystone XL’s design, safety, operating procedures and limited environmental impact.”

TransCanada said the new pipeline would bring more than $585 million in new taxes to states and cities located on its path through the American heartland. An additional $5.2 billion in property taxes would be paid over the proposed 50-year lifespan of the project and create jobs that would provide $6.5 billion in personal income to American workers.

She also tells us that Jim Hoffa, President of the Teamster Union,  supports the project, as well. He estimates the project will create 20,000 good jobs. However, the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that the project could create as much as 340,000 US  jobs.

However, the EPA and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have concerns, as penny points out:

In July 2010, the EPA sent a letter to the State Department criticizing its original EIS as “inadequate.” The 18-page letter detailed a long list of concerns, including pollution from the refineries, problems with spillage containment in case of an accident, and environmental justice — in particular “the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations.”

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a liberal group, also reacted to the State Department’s decision on Mar. 15, echoing the EPA’s concerns and adding how the pipeline might adversely have an effect on migratory birds and the American Burying Beetle.

The potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations? What about the potential for disproportionately high adverse affects of unduly high energy costs on minorities, low-income and Tribal populations? Envirnmental justice? PLEASE!!!

The pipeline might adversely have an effect on migratory birds and the American Burying Beetle? What? Migratory birds are going to have problems flying over the pipeline?American Burying Bettle? WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???

Folks, the environmental wingnuts are but a small part of our population but they control the energy agenda in America. They have infiltrated our government and its agencies and they are IN CHARGE. The lunatics are running the asylum.

What do you think?

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

 

Share

End All Energy Production?

Share

On Wednesday, August 6, 2008 I wrote:

As I listened to Obama talk about his energy visions for the future, I imagined what it would be like to live in a world that is cured of it’s oil addiction- a world where there is no power generated by fossil fuels, and instead water and wind power the world. Ahh, indeed- the change we need… windmill from ancient Rhodes, waterwheel from Roman Spain…

After two years of an Obama Presidency and Democrats in Congress, it appears that the world’s chief sources of large-scale energy production — coal, oil and nuclear power — all are becoming increasingly unsafe and unproductive, possibly moving us back to the future of windmills and waterwheels. Liberals and Democrats have seized on the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion in West Virginia, the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan, to dramatize the dangers of conventional power generation and push for more regulation, taxes, and government control over these industries while simultaneously diverting large amounts of taxpayer money to politically-connected companies who dutifully pray at the alter of the Green God.

The winners of this war on coal, oil, and nuclear are the Al Gore’s of the world, who make big money selling government false promises and inefficient power generation, and every set-back or disaster in the coal, oil, and nuclear world are met with happy glee from the government agents transferring wealth from productive, job creating energy businesses to unproductive, job killing green energy politically-connected firms.

The continued support for Democrats marks the beginning of the end of energy production and the voluntarily suicide of a nation’s ability to power itself, on a level not seen since the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse convinced her tribe that it must destroy all their crops and kill their cattle so that they might progress as a society and be more powerful and happy. Sadly, much like Al Gore, following the advice of Nongqawuse only resulted in a calamity of staggering proportions for the Xhosa people, as it will be in our nation if we don’t continue to drill for oil, mine for coal, and build nuclear reactors.

The ‘woes of Japan’ are a wake-up call for our nation- a nuclear reactor that was built 40 years ago can withstand a 8.9 earthquake, tsunami, and electrical problems and still keep generating power- surely we can build better, more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants here in America to power our nation and improve our national security. The biggest barrier is liberals, Democrats, and their uneducated unwashed mass of interest groups who in their ignorance and foolishness would drag us back to less prosperous times, if we let them.

 

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher
Share

Covert Operations of the UN’s Agenda 21 and Their Agents for Sustainable Development

Share

What is Agenda 21 and what is Sustainable Development? If you don’t know, then welcome to the club. I was only recently made aware of what they are by Cheryl Pass of the My Tea Party Chronicle blog. Cheryl has written three recent articles on this subject that are, in my opinion, must reading.  One was written on March 5, 2011, one on March 6, 2011 and. the most recent article was written on March 8, 2011. Apart from being typically well written, there are numerous useful links, which give the reader a chance to  take a mind opening journey of what for most people is an unknown and un-heard of world of deceit and deception. For me it has become a long journey that I am purposely taking in small steps.

From Cheryl’s March 5 article we have this brief introduction to Agenda 21:

Briefly, Agenda 21, which debuted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, is a United Nations action plan for worldwide environment and development. It is a comprehensive blueprint for actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by governments and organizations connected to the United Nations in every area where “humans affect the environment.” (Funny, I can’t think of a human life that does not have any affect on the environment, so that pretty much covers every living, breathing human being on the planet.) The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 with someone called Maurice Strong as the primary author. (Please research Maurice Strong, also.) Because Agenda 21 is an anti-private property rights agenda and would likely bring about resistance from Constitutional. freedom-loving Americans, the initiatives now carry lots of utopian sounding names such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, Lands Conservancies, Greenways, Livable Communities, etc.

From Wikipedia we have this description of Sustainable Development:

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF-Environment, Local people, Future). The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[1][2]

Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity ofnatural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s “sustainability” was employed to describe an economy “in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.”[3] Ecologists have pointed to The Limits to Growth,[citation needed] and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy[4] in order to address environmental concerns.

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmentalsustainabilityeconomic sustainability andsociopolitical sustainability.

And from another source we have this on Sustainable Development:

Here’s what Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”, said when introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II):  Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.  It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”  Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

So what is it that the UN and their environmental wackos want from countries like the United States? They want to drastically reduce the impact of the human race on the planet , specially in the developed countries and they want to make all people equal (wealth redistribution). I’m not kidding. Look a this article by Donna J. Holt at RightSideNews.Com.  Donna presents a detailed history of Sustainable development and Agenda 21 going back to 1974. But for now, just take a look at this map and what it implies:

Note: The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty, Agenda 21, was never voted on by Senate after Dr. Michael Coffman presented this map of the proposed development of the “wildlands” under Agenda 21 in the United States.

 

The areas you see in red represents wilderness reserves which will be off-limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas. This is where you’ll be allowed to live.

Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development on June 29 1993.

The Council’s Membership included:

• Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
• Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
• John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
• Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
• Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
• John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
• Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enron Corporation
• William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator

Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”.

In Cheryl’s article of March 6, you’ll learn just what “A New Consensus” means. How environmental groups and NGOs are using Federal grants to convince local governments that there is a consensus in their community that support the recommended project where in fact there is no such consensus. Ever hear of The Delphi Technique? Check it out and learn how to defend you community against this cancer.

This post is already long and I’ve only been able to give you a broad brush picture of what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is about. Please bear with me because I’m about to make it much longer by reprinting an entire article from the March 2010 Idaho Observer by Anne Wilder Chamberlain. I think if you will take the time to read this piece it will clarify what so many of our communities and for that matter are country are up against. Pay special attention to the missions of the various groups involved.  I’ll look forward to your thoughts on Sustainable Development. In the future I will make post on this issue of more reasonable length. This is an important issue and I think it deserves the attention of the blogosphere.

Smart Growth and Your Local University:“Building Sustainable Communities Initiative”

by Anne Wilder Chamberlain

The sleepy little (ex)-timber community of Priest River, Idaho, lies in the northern part of the Idaho Panhandle – a designated “red zone” in the Wildlands Project and in the very heart of the Y2Y corridor (see “Yukon to Yellowstone,” Jan. 2010 I.O.). This town of approximately 2000 has been devastated by governmental regulations on harvesting timber from its forest service land as well as the drop in the market due to the national housing collapse. Over 500 timber workers and support lost their jobs in the last year. So with a promise of $168,000 in U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Agriculture grants towards eco-development of the town, local government paid $10,900 to the University of Idaho Bioregional Planning Department – for the second time – to be the recipient of its Building Sustainable Communities Initiative (BCSI) “brainstorming sessions.” The meetings are facilitated by professionals to help in Priest River’s “visioning process.” However, so far the meetings have not included brainstorming sessions on how to create jobs.

The BCSI program is supported in part by the Idaho Department of Commerce, the Idaho Department of Labor, the Resilience Alliance, the American Planning Association (APA), and Second Nature.

APA states on its website that “among the highlights of the Obama administration’s FY 2011 budget request are: $4 billion for a new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund; $527 million for new sustainable communities initiatives at the Department of Transportation; $150 million for HUD’s (Housing and Urban Development) sustainable communities grant program; $250 million for the new Choice Neighborhoods program at HUD; $10 million for smart growth technical assistance at EPA; $1 billion for the Housing Trust Fund; …and a near doubling of funding at HUD for research and technical assistance,” along with over $1.2 billion in other HUD and transportation grants funded by you, the taxpayer.

Second Nature’s mission is “to accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making…sustainable living the foundation of all learning” in higher education “by modeling ways to eliminate global warming emissions.”

It is funded by the Kresge Foundation, a $2.8 billion private foundation that in 2008 awarded 342 grants totaling $181 million “to influence the quality of life for future generations.”

Smart Growth and the Wildlands Project: Humans will be caged, while animals run free

The Wildlands Project is the plan to eliminate human presence on “at least 50 percent of the American landscape,” wrote Reed Noss, Science Editor for Wild Earth, the Wildlands Project publication.

On March 3, Obama identified 14 pieces of land for another federal unilateral land grab – more than 10 million acres in the Western U.S. – to place under the “protection” of the Department of the Interior. The federal government already owns approximately 650 million acres nationwide, including about 80% of Nevada and 63% of Utah. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out the loss from this land grab of jobs in ranching, forestry, mining, and energy development and the related loss of tax revenue needed for schools, firehouses etc., and proposed a constitutional amendment to block it (defeated 58 to 38).

Sustainable Development is the plan to accomplish global control, using land and resource restrictions as well as “social transformation through education”. The transfer of land from citizen control to government control makes it easy for government and its partners – Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), certain foundations, and certain corporations – to control what we have, what we do, and where we go. The transformation of free societies into collectivized ones ensures the presence of a ruling elite, which, by definition, excludes all but a very select few.

The land use element calls for the implementation of two action plans designed to eliminate private property: the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth. Upon implementation of these plans, all human activity is subject to control.

The Wildlands Project (see Dec 2009 I.O.) seeks to collectivize all natural resources – like water – and centralize all use decisions under government direction. Tools include the Endangered Species Act, various “conservation easements,” growth management plans, and direct land acquisitions.

The Wildlands Project is inextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth. As human beings become barred from rural land (and lose their property due to foreclosure), human activity will be concentrated in urban areas. Through taxpayer-subsidized Smart Growth complexes, the infrastructure is being created for a post-private property era. Sometimes called “comprehensive planning,” Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, population control, public health and diet, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education, toxic technology and waste management, transportation, and economic activity.

A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual waking up in his government-provided housing unit, eating a ration of government-subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walking his children to the government-run child care center, and boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his government job.

Smart Growth policies:

  • A transportation plan that reduces mobility and forces people to live near their work in heavily-regulated feudalistic “transit villages.”
  • Tax-subsidized, government-controlled, mixed-use developments called “human settlements,” like developments in Portland, Oregon where the lure of paying as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valued at $1.5 million has led to high occupancy.
  • Settlements distinguished from one another by how useful the citizens are for society. The Smart Growth plan for Richland County, SC, distinguishes between “employment-based villages,” and “non-employment-based villages,” with special gated communities for the wealthy individuals overseeing the plan, and “non-employment” villages located in former slums.
  • Heavy restrictions on most development with the exception of that constructed and managed by government “partners” where extremely dense development is promoted.
  • Rations on public services such as health care, drinking water, and energy resources. According to the Global Water Supply and Assessment Report (2000), reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres.”

The Talloires Conference

In 1990 representatives from universities around the world, including the University of Idaho, met in Talloires, France and signed the Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for colleges and universities committed to promoting education for sustainability and environmental literacy.

The conference was organized and hosted by Tufts University President Jean Mayer and sponsored by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. After a keynote address by Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (June 1992), the universities developed their series of recommended actions. As university leaders, they were considered uniquely positioned as “universities educate most of the people who develop and manage society’s institutions.”

The Talloires Declaration “inspired other such official declarations” including the Kyoto Declaration of the International Association of Universities (11/93) and the Student Charter for a Sustainable Future (United Kingdom, 7/95).

As of January 2008, the Talloires Declaration has been signed by more than 360 university presidents and chancellors at institutions in over 40 countries across five continents.

Visioning and Stakeholder Councils In local communities, such as those in North Idaho, Sustainable Development is carried out using stakeholder councils: events organized to give community members a “stake” in the control over some local project. A typical meeting is run by a trained “facilitator,” whose job is, not to make sure all views are entered on the record, but rather, to guide the group to a predetermined consensus. The Agenda 21 advocates systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any opposition, particularly that of individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The facilitator will record “good” ideas and allow criticism for “bad” ones.The result of the stakeholder council is called a “consensus” or “vision statement”, and is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected authority that is not accountable to the voters and may not even be from the region.“Visioning” events are generally initiated by local public officials, local or regional NGOs, or by the United Nations co-opted higher education system. It is important to remember that the same universities that are offering “sustainability” events have biotech labs that artificially manipulate seed for the financial benefit of large conscienceless corporations like Monsanto. Participating Departments of the Univ. of Idaho BCSI include the College of Agricultural & Life Sciences, of which the Univ. of Idaho Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering is a part. Biological (i.e. genetic) engineering manipulates seeds to withstand large amounts of highly toxic herbicides; to kill insects and change the bacteria in our gut; and to be unable to self-replicate, thereby destroying the sustainability of small communities and farmers worldwide.

Land rights

The good news is that the “visioning process” doesn’t always work. One Sustainable Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville, SC was adjourned with the admission by the facilitator that they had not reached the consensus needed to support the predetermined plan. It goes to show that if attendees are aware of UN methods and are definite in protecting their rights, these plans will fail.

[See how to break “The Delphi Technique”, Jan. 2010 I.O.]

Pete Simmons, property rights lawyer from the State of Washington went up against his county’s application of Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA), which “requires all cities and counties in the state to designate and protect wetlands…and other critical areas…, plan for urban growth, [and] …adopt comprehensive plans.” He succeeded by studying the State Constitution, which reads, “All political power is inherent in the people…the purpose of government is to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Today the Stevens County Comprehensive Plan holds “private property rights free from intermeddling by outside government and interest groups.”

Conclusion

Sustainable Development advocates are often unaware that the natural consequence of their environmental, social equity, and “new economy” movement is tyranny. If we understand the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will come to light.

We must:

  • Respect each other; the road to liberty requires a conscious decision to defend our neighbor’s right to life, liberty and the use and enjoyment of his property.
  • Know the Declaration of Independence and our State Constitution – the principles of our Republic – and commit to securing the blessings of liberty for posterity.
  • Work to eliminate harmful indoctrination in schools by taking charge of our children’s education.
  • Advocate Freedom Locally: Hold elected officials accountable to the Constitution that is being undermined by federally coordinated grants; awaken genuine free-enterprise business people to the threat posed by United Nations-sponsored “Sustainability.”
  • Reject government-funded conservation agreements: i.e. federal, NGO, or foundation grants, and ‘comprehensive’, ‘community’, Smart Growth, or Wildlands planning.
  • Support the repeal of the Endangered Species Act
  • Expose NGOs that are working to undermine the American vision by promoting a global political agenda that is contrary to the ideas of liberty. The information regarding Agenda 21 and “Educating the Youth” are excerpted from Mike Shaw’s booklets, Understanding Sustainable Development Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, Global to Local Action Plans, available for $3.00 each from Freedom Advocates, P.O. Box 3330, Freedom, Calif. 95019 (831) 685-2232www.freedomadvocates.org

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

Share

Transportation Policy: Coercion From Multiple Directions

Share

Well, it’s a new week, and time for a new series.  I had been planning a few related posts, but as I read up on the topics, I realized that they are closely related to a common theme.  First up, let’s take a look at transportation policy.

It has long been my assertion that the left has been waging a war on the automobile for decades now.   Escalating, and often conflicting regulations regarding mileage, emissions, and safety, have made it increasingly expensive to own and operate a car.  Given that this has been going on for decades, it is safe to assume that is intentional.   Under the Obama administration, this seems to have accelerated.  Last May, I wrote about the administration’s attitude towards both transportation policy, and governing.

On May 21, LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing—sometimes known as the “livability initiative”–was designed to “coerce” people out of their cars.

“Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” said the moderator at the National Press Club event. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said LaHood.

The moderator later asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives. How do you respond?”

About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.” (emphasis mine)

Coercion, and “so have at it,” that’s the “progressive” way.  Mind you, the “livability initiative,” among other things, changes zoning laws to make sure that while you might have a car, there wouldn’t be many, if any, places to park it.  Essentially, it means to make you dependent upon the government for your mobility, hence, limiting your mobility.

Of course, that was last year, and LaHood seems to be making good on the coercion; as evidenced by a shift in funding, and therefore, emphasis.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling.

LaHood signed the new policy directive on March 11, the same day he attended a congressional reception for the National Bike Summit, a convention sponsored by a bicycling advocacy group, the League of American Bicyclists. LaHood publicly announced his agency’s new direction four days later in a posting on his blog—“Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation”–where he effusively described it as a “sea change” for the United States.

“Today, I want to announce a sea change,” LaHood wrote. “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

So, there will be more funding for non-motorized transportation.  Bike lanes and trails will be constructed, no doubt, but how does the government subsidize “walking?”  One wonders…

But what are the implications of this?  If getting around is more difficult, and the government decides where public transit goes, they gain a vast measure of control over each of us.  Where you might work will be limited.  Where you are able to live will be controlled by where public transit runs, or the limits of the bike trail, or your shoes.    Mind you, they won’t say, “you can’t live there,” they’ll just make it virtually impossible to do so.

Go back a century.  Before efficient personal transportation, people lived their entire lives in the same town or city.  The automobile changed all of that.   Each stage of automotive development allowed goods to be moved efficiently, and people were able to live away from cities, which they fled in vast numbers.  Also, remember that affordable cars were hailed as a great source of personal freedom, as people became mobile.  That mobility allowed people to move about, giving them opportunities for work and pleasure that simply did not previously exist.

Are the days of those opportunities numbered? Do the “progressives” want us to return to a more primitive state?  Isn’t that REgressive?  It would seem that the “progressives” believe that this freedom must go.

I’ve often said that the “progressives” won’t directly ban or outlaw most things.  You’ll still be technically able to own a car, but your actual ability to do so will be increasingly limited.  Here’s the latest from Detroit News.

The new regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency establish emissions and fuel standards for model years 2012-16. The changes will boost overall fleet fuel efficiency to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. But it will also cost automakers about $60 billion and add an average $1,300 to the purchase price of a new vehicle.

Now, if this is like most other government estimations of costs, it will be much higher.  But how many people will not be able to afford cars if the cost keeps increasing?  Also, it is being said that people will save money with more efficient cars- more than the increased initial cost of the car.  However, do those alleged savings account for the increase cost of fuel over the life of the car?  How many people will, as a result,  have to depend on some government entity to get to work or to shop?

And, what if Cap and Trade passes, and gas goes up to $6-7 a gallon?  How many more people will be rendered immobile?  Will all we have are government owned/controlled transportation entities that are run like AMTrak?

Then again, you might be lucky enough to own a car once all of this passes.

Or will you be lucky…

You don’t have to take our word for it. In its original proposal, issued in August, the Obama administrations own National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimated that the standards could cause 493 additional traffic fatalities annually.

Fuel efficiency standards kill because one of the easiest ways for automakers to meet them is to make smaller cars. That’s problematic, because smaller cars are less safe. Research has shown that the smallest cars have occupant death rates that are more than twice those of large cars.

Congress first enacted vehicle fuel efficiency mandates — a.k.a. Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards — in 1975, and there is a long paper trail showing the causal relationship between increased fuel efficiency standards and increased traffic fatalities. Examples:

  • A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that CAFE’s downsizing effect contributed to between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths in a single representative year, and to 10 times that many serious injuries.
  • A 1989 Brookings-Harvard study estimated that CAFE caused a 14 to 27 percent increase in occupant fatalities — an annual toll of 2,200 to 3,900 deaths.
  • A 1999 USA Today analysis found that, over its lifetime, CAFE had resulted in 46,000 additional fatalities.
  • Well, I guess all the deaths will not only take more drivers off the road, but it’ll also save on ObamaCare, won’t it?

    To summarize, this phase is a two pronged attack on the ability to own and operate a car.  One uses zoning and changes in transportation funding to make it more difficult to use a car, and the other makes it more difficult to own or operate a car.  Both are occurring simultaneously, and are being directed by unelected government officials.

    That, and the government has killed more Americans with the CAFE standards than died in Vietnam, The Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined!

    Well, this is part one.  It does seem that there is some conspiring going on when it comes to transportation policy.  Sec. LaHood has been rather out front with the intent to coerce people.  Unfortunately, transportation is not the only area in which people are being manipulated.  In the next few days, we’ll take a look at another.

    Share

    De-Development: Coming to a “Sustainable Community” Near You?

    Share

    John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, caused a stir in late July when it was discovered that he supported “de-development” in the 1970’s.  Since this was a claim made about the 70’s, I decided not to discuss it.  After all, thirty plus years is a long time, and there is no current evidence that he currently supports this idea.  Though, curiously, requests for clarification on this have been ignored.

    Then, I decided to revisit the idea of “de-development,” because even if Holdren has moved on philosophically, what about the idea itself?  There would have to be other adherents to this out there somewhere, right?

    To take a look at the issue, let’s revisit the original controversy from earlier this summer.  First up, this from CNS News.

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”

    In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribution of wealth.

    “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

    Well, there are quite a few leftist fallacies here.  I think the most prominent, though unstated, one, is the idea of the zero sum game.  They infer that some nations are wealthy because others are impoverished.  This comes from the Marxist theory of class exploitation. The central premise is that for someone to have more, someone else has to have less.  The fallacy here is that there is not a finite amount of wealth.  When someone, or some company is successful, more wealth is created.  From this wealth comes jobs and opportunities for others.  Do some have more?  Yes.  Do more people benefit? Also yes.  Are other people robbed so some become wealthy and many others have opportunity?  No.  The premise itself is faulty.

    Additionally, equitable wealth among nations is determined not only by geography, resources, culture, and circumstance, but also by political system.  Would North Koreans be starving if they didn’t have a communist government?  Would Cubans have toilet paper (But they have that great health care!)?  Would so many African nations be better off if they weren’t using sustainable development as a model?

    Here’s some more…

    “It is therefore apparent,” they said, “that one key to saving world society lies in a measured and orderly retreat from overdevelopment in today’s ODCs (overdeveloped countries)–a process we will label, for want of a better word, de-development.”

    “As we see it, de-development of the ODCs should be given top priority,” they wrote on page 926.

    “Only when that course is firmly established, will there be any real hope for all of humanity to generate a worldwide spirit of cooperation rather than competition and to plan the development of our (planet) with the holistic perspective that is so essential to the survival of civilization,” they wrote. “Only then can consumption in the (less developed countries) be linked both psychologically and physically to production in the ODCs and a substantial transfer of wealth accomplished.”

    They added: “However, many technologists now correctly perceive that, if the ODCs are to be de-developed and civilization is to persist, the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”

    “The task thus becomes one of diverting people from pursuing that material-intensive and environmentally unsustainable lifestyle,” they said. “The only way to divert the rush in the LDCs to mimic overdevelopment is to change the model–to trim from the lifestyle and supporting technology of the ODCs their energetic and material profligacy while increasing the quality of life.”

    Ok then, technology, consumption, and our current lifestyle (as defined by the standards of the 1970’s) is unsustainable.

    Here are some additional quotes related to de-development.  This is not a Conservative source, and the author regards conservatives as a “rabid, fundamentalist religion.”

    “The Wildlands Project, which proposes to make 50% of the continent of North America uninhabitable, appears to be going “wild” all across the nation. Reports from California, South Carolina, Virginia, and almost every state in between are reporting huge chunks of their state being designated.” –Joyce Morrison

    “…that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region…. with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” –Wildlands Project

    “…Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low-rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development (PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use-development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter-modal transportation malls and facilities …where trolleys, rapid transit, trains and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures.” –U.N. Conference on Human Settlements

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” –Paul Ehrlick

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” –Maurice King

    It isn’t enough for the elite that you live and work in a cubicle; they want to control your usage of water, electricity, food and more. That is where the grid[9] comes in, the smart grid technology. The smart grid system[10] plans to control all of your utilities and monitor[11] their usage against the ‘sustainable’ projections to determine if you or your family is a net consumer or producer. This is the scientific dictatorship at work. Prepare yourself for peak usage[12] and heavy tax and fees for power users and perks for those who recycle and play by the new rules. The smart grid is an integrated system which goes hand in hand with cell technology so I am sure that your vehicle mileage and condition will come in to play as well.

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” –Stephen Schnieder

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” –Paul Ehrlick

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” –David Brower(Sierra Club)

    And finally, this…

    However, ultimately the answer, as suggested at the beginning of this chapter, is to change the industrial system itself and return to a largely rural, community-based society in which economic activities are conducted on a very much smaller scale and that cater as much as possible for the local economy. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for India was that of a nation of loosely organized village republics. The Swiss Confederation was originally very much like this. Practically all the power resided with its rural Communes, in which real participatory democracy prevailed, while the Cantons were to begin with but loose alliances created by the Communes in different areas, largely for purposes of defence against some external threat, the Confederate government itself having very little power.

    So, the only way for mankind to survive is to move towards an agrarian society, abandon technology, mobility, energy, and comfort.  Let’s summarize this.

    • Population must be controlled ( I wonder if having the “right” beliefs will determine if someone can have a child?)
    • Technology and the current US lifestyle must be abandoned.
    • We must move to what could be described as a subsistence agricultural economy.
    • “Cutting out the cancer” is a clear reference to killing people.
    • The government will have to manage this de-development, and then all aspects of human life, from cradle to grave.
    • It’s OK to lie to achieve this goal.

    So, we don’t know if Mr. Holdren still believes this.  He simply hasn’t answered any questions to clarify this.  I would challenge him to do so, but I doubt any answer will be forthcoming, but then again, if it’s OK to lie and exaggerate to achieve these goals, would he even be truthful?

    Is some of this coming from the radical left?  Absolutely!  Does the “mainstream” environmental movement embrace this, well…somewhat.  Remember my favorite environmental quote:

    “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” –Maurice Strong

    Share

    Calling it Something Else: Sustainable Development

    Share

    Move on in.  Your government approved housing awaits!
    Move on in. Your government approved housing awaits!

    When Dr. Dave mentioned bulldozing cities, a light bulb went off.  Sustainable Development! You know, that plan that herds us all into government managed utopias with vastly reduced standards of living?  Won’t it be great?  I mean the government will tell you where to live, where to work, how much you’ll be paid, if you can drive, (if you’re lucky enough) what you can drive, what you can eat, you’re heating and cooling settings, your medical care, in other words…

    THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF ALL HUMAN LIFE!

    Now, the libtards would never admit to this, and, as usual, they are implementing their plans incrementally.  A little here, a “shared sacrifice” there, a “hard decision” a few years from now, and low and behold, you’re on the government plantation, and there is NO escape.

    Yeah, I know “LOL, yer a kook!”  But look it up.  The information is out there.  Also, I can always reference my favorite Sustainable Stupidity quote

    Canadian oil billionaire Maurice Strong, Secretary General at the Rio de Janeiro United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, expressed the goal of Sustainable Development by declaring a partial list of what is not sustainable:

    “…current life-styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class [e.g. Americans]-involving high meat intake [e.g. cattle production], use of fossil fuels [e.g. air and auto travel], industrial and consumer products, appliances [e.g. refrigeration] home and work air-conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.” (emphasis added)

    So, even if you don’t believe my rant, will you believe Mr. Strong?

    Now, it’s the incrementalism that we have to look out for.  That’s why Dr. Dave’s comments hit me.  To illustrate, take a look at this.

    The US government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

    The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

    Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

    “Concentrating the dwindling population into a more viable area.”  How exactly do you plan to do that?   How are you going to ‘”coerce” people into moving where you want them to be?  What gives you the right to decide where, or even if, the population should be concentrated?

    Most are former industrial cities in the “rust belt” of America’s Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

    In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

    “The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we’re all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way,” said Mr Kildee. “Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.” (Emphasis added)

    Where to start?  First, the decline is due to liberal policies; from the labor unions that chased the auto industry out, to environmental regulations that harmed the auto industry as a whole.  Finally, tax policy, failing schools, high crime, and the usual Demonrat  thug machine probably did the rest.

    Also, they use the term sustainable.  While that, in and of itself, is relatively harmless-it’s one of the new buzz words, after all!  The idea to form small, self contained residential areas is part of the overall Sustainable Stupidity plan.  The idea is to centralize population, government services, and business into a self contained, centrally controlled gulag for the sheeple.  In these areas will be your government schools, government health care, government jobs, and infrastructure.  All of it will be centrally planned,  managed and controlled.  This, clearly, is a step in that direction.

    Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

    Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

    The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

    Again, liberal policies and activities destroyed the area.  Young people leave for places where there are JOBS and OPPORTUNITY.  If you doubt the deserted nature of the area, Google Earth is an eye-opener.

    Regarded as a model city in the motor industry’s boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.

    But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that “big is good” and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

    He said: “The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.”

    “If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.”  This is TRUE!  Development and expansion ARE signs of success you twit!  If  these areas were actually successful, why did so many people leave?  Notice the attempt to redefine failure as success.  Liberals destroy an economy and cause most of  the population to leave, and they try to define this as success?   If they spun any faster, they’d break the sound barrier!

    UPDATE: I forgot something here.  The liberals create crises, then exploit them for their own gain.  They destroy something, blame capitalism and/or conservatives and use it as a justification to expand their own power-at our expense, of course.

    Flint’s recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

    They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

    Much of the Sustainable Stupidity plans are being implemented at the local level.  To enable this, zoning laws have been changed in many parts of the US, and laws that allow local governments to take property more easily are part of that.  To redefine where people live, work, and travel, you need to give governments at all levels the ability to “herd” the people, incrementally, to where you want them to be.  It starts by either restricting building, or making it so expensive or difficult, that almost no one will want to try.  Then, they create “incentives” to abandon personal transportation, like high fuel prices, making cars too expensive, and so on.  To follow up, they create plans like the one described here – destroy neighborhoods in order to ensure that people move where the authorities want.

    The specialization in certain services or industries is one of the hallmarks of Sustainable Stupidity.  As with this particular plan, there are to be communities that are self contained and government controlled.  They are to be connected by public transportation.  Eventually, cars and roads will be things of the past-too much freedom of mobility there.  People will be “assigned” by government officials, to jobs, services, and the like.

    The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

    Did you work for years to work towards a nice home?  Did you pick a neighborhood that was safe, and had good schools?  Don’t worry, the government will move the crime to you!  In the socialist future, there will be only two classes;  government minions, and YOU!  Best to break up that whole “success” thing by ruining the few remaining good neighborhoods!

    People won’t be forced to move.  That’s true, at least at first.   Initially, the program will proceed by restricting building, and cutting off services to selected areas.  If you want to live in an area that is to be returned to nature, you can.  Just don’t expect roads, schools, utilities, police and fire coverage, and the like.  Most people will “choose” to move into the lovely “sustainable villages”  set up by the government.  Remember the minion that talked about “coercing” people?  Do you see what I mean?

    Remember, the liberals don’t always ban things out of hand.  They restrict, reduce, regulate, and coerce.  They do all of these, and do them a little at a time.  They hope is that you don’t realize it until it’s too late.  Of course, they have the Legion of Doom to sell it to the sheeple.

    For more information on Sustainable Stupidity, kindly look here, or here.

    Also, take a look at this article where a minion admits that coersion is a part of the government’s playbook.

    How ya likin that change?

    Share