By Tom DeWeese August 6, 2004 NewsWithViews.com
On July 23, 2004, Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, addressed the fifth annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, Nevada. The following is the first of two parts of his address on the agenda, the threat, and the defeat of "Sustainable Development."
My friends, we come here today from many walks of life. A wide variety of reasons got each of us started on the road to activism.
Some of us started simply because we noticed something funny about our child's curriculum in school. Some of us were outraged by government trying to take away our guns. A good many of us suddenly found government agents and members of private groups plotting to take away our land. Some have had their livestock confiscated. Some have found themselves facing jail just for doing what their fathers and grandfathers have done on the same land for decades.
Some of us just wanted to be allowed to go to church, pray to God and celebrate Christmas without being fined for it. A few of us would even like to be able to go to a restaurant and order food we like - even if it is greasy, fattening and full of carbs and calories.
All of us just want to live in an America where our rights and pursuit of happiness is protected. And so we fight. And now we've found ourselves here today in a room with hundreds of others in the same boat.
I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us and conquered us.
They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.
You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And unless you learn that fact now, today... and unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms… then you cannot win!
I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.
And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children and your God… if you love liberty… Then Sustainable Development is your enemy!
So what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.
Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.
In his book, "Earth in the Balance," Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.
Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language - designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.
Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats and horses is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute and damage the banks of streams.
Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards who fear your reaction to an outright banning of eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So they use scare tactics. For years they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PeTA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.
Then along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight in a healthy way. Suddenly the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.
Now watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health. Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.
Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable Development. And so I repeat, - the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.
Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle:
On our public education system - to prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.
On our economy - to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies.
On the environment - leading to controls on private property and business.
On health care - the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.
On farming - Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning precious chemicals, biotechnology and genetic engineering in the name of environmental protection.
On our social and cultural environment - where political correctness is controlling policy hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.
On our mobility - with emphasis on carpools and public transportation and away from the freedom of personal transportation.
And on public safety - where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.
It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.
And you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America - and every state, city and small burg in the nation.
It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election - the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward unabated.
What we are telling you here today, my friends, is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.
Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you. And Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory or a conspiracy - as I've heard some in our own movement call it.
Since the 1970's literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.
Finally in 1992 the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called "Agenda 21" and the "Biodiversity Treaty." Here the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally every aspect of our lives.
To get the full picture, add to these the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create UN-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.
In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.
And the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs and reroute already-approved funding to begin to implement the agenda - without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could implement 67% of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.
Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up - from rails-to trails bikeways - to wet lands regulations - to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.
In this way an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold and became official policy of the United States of America.
Source: 2004 Tom DeWeese – American Policy Center
Friday, March 16, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tennessee Legislature Condemns U.N. Agenda 21
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 587 By Brooks K
A RESOLUTION relative to United Nations Agenda 21.
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of
Extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political
control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into
local communities throughout the United States of America through
the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart
Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning
Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called
“sustainable development” views the American way of life of private
property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and
individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as
destructive to the environment; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social
justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people
to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and
the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist
redistribution of wealth; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national
sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the General Assembly
recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United
Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and
public policymakers the dangerous intent of the plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that neither the U.S. government nor any
state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations
Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the
U.S. Senate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government and state and
local governments across the country be well informed of the
underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations
Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development,”
and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection
of any grant monies attached to it.
Source: Tennessee Legislature
A RESOLUTION relative to United Nations Agenda 21.
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of
Extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political
control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into
local communities throughout the United States of America through
the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart
Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning
Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called
“sustainable development” views the American way of life of private
property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and
individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as
destructive to the environment; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social
justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people
to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and
the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist
redistribution of wealth; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national
sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the General Assembly
recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United
Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and
public policymakers the dangerous intent of the plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that neither the U.S. government nor any
state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations
Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the
U.S. Senate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government and state and
local governments across the country be well informed of the
underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations
Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development,”
and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection
of any grant monies attached to it.
Source: Tennessee Legislature
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Year Solar Goes Bankrupt
By John Ransom
Get ready for a new round of green bankruptcies, as Europe trims back subsidies for solar companies and taxpayers lose their appetite for subsidizing green power.
“The mini-bubble resulting from the rush to cash in on solar subsidies in European and U.S. markets is ending, as feed-in tariffs drop in Europe while loan guarantee and tax credit programs tighten up in the U.S.,” says a new report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch according to CNBC.com.
Germany is dialing back subsidies for solar this month by 29 percent with subsequent decreases each month, according to Bloomberg.com.
Rasmussen has recently released a survey of voters that show a diminishing number of voters support subsidizing the production of the Chevy Volt.
Only 29 percent of likely voters agree with Obama’s latest proposal to include a $10,000 subsidy in the federal budget to support the purchase of every electric vehicle.
The survey found that 58 percent oppose the plan, while 13 percent remain undecided.
And make no mistake, without subsidies solar, electric vehicles, wind power and other alternatives remain a chimera.
“Steven Cortes, CNBC contributor and founder of Veracruz Research, also sees solar stocks declining further and wonders about the impact of the recent natural gas boom on the sector.
“’As much as I love sun, I hate the solar space. This is not a real business, it’s a political construct,’” Cortes said on Fast Money Wednesday. “’And they can’t compete with natural gas at these levels.’”
According to the Associated Press the U.S. now has 2.433 trillion cubic feet in storage.
“That figure is 48.3 percent more than the five-year average, the Energy Department said,” reports the AP. “Natural gas fell 3 cents to finish at $2.27 per 1,000 cubic feet in New York. The price has fallen about 27 percent this year and is at the lowest level in a decade.”
Last week Abound Solar announced it would lay off half its workforce despite receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy last year. The rating agency Fitch’s hit Abound over failures to meet stated goals, old technology, calling the company “highly speculative” according toABCNews.
Reports ABC:
It remains way too early to determine whether Abound is poised to follow the trajectory of the best-known solar manufacturer to receive a sizeable government loan -- Solyndra, the California firm that filed for bankruptcy in September after having burned through the bulk of its $535 million federal loan. Perhaps.
However, there is an old saying in the market that the tape doesn’t lie.
And the tape on solar companies is horrendous.
In the second quarter of 2008 First Solar (Symbol: FSLR) briefly touched $300 per share. Today it trades at $27.49. That equals losses of about $24 billion in market capitalization in just four years.
In April of last year Trina Solar LTD (Symbol: TSL) was trading just under $30 and is now trading at about $7.31. Earnings estimates have gone in the last few months from Trina losing about 17 cents per share for 2012 to losing about 63 cents per share.
The Guggenheim Solar ETF (Symbol: TAN) has also moved down from around $300 per share in mid 2008, until it trades now at $27.02.
And the fundamentals aren’t getting better for solar soon, because solar can’t compete with coal-fired or nuclear generated electric.
“Fewer solar panels will be installed this year,” reports Bloomberg “as the first drop in more than a decade worsens a glut of the unsold devices that’s already slashed margins at the top five manufacturers, an analyst survey showed... Without government incentives, even record low prices for solar panels may not be cheap enough to encourage solar farm developers and homeowners to install them in the volumes needed to work through the glut, said Rozwadowski, the most pessimistic analyst in the survey. He expects installations to drop to 20.7 gigawatts.”
It’s important to note that the poor performance of the solar industry came at a time when government financial support has been at an all-time high world-wide. It only goes to show that politics and public policy are poor substitutes for free market economics.
Expect the solar industry to continue to crash and burn as government money continues to dry up along with public support.
Source: John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance.
Get ready for a new round of green bankruptcies, as Europe trims back subsidies for solar companies and taxpayers lose their appetite for subsidizing green power.
“The mini-bubble resulting from the rush to cash in on solar subsidies in European and U.S. markets is ending, as feed-in tariffs drop in Europe while loan guarantee and tax credit programs tighten up in the U.S.,” says a new report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch according to CNBC.com.
Germany is dialing back subsidies for solar this month by 29 percent with subsequent decreases each month, according to Bloomberg.com.
Rasmussen has recently released a survey of voters that show a diminishing number of voters support subsidizing the production of the Chevy Volt.
Only 29 percent of likely voters agree with Obama’s latest proposal to include a $10,000 subsidy in the federal budget to support the purchase of every electric vehicle.
The survey found that 58 percent oppose the plan, while 13 percent remain undecided.
And make no mistake, without subsidies solar, electric vehicles, wind power and other alternatives remain a chimera.
“Steven Cortes, CNBC contributor and founder of Veracruz Research, also sees solar stocks declining further and wonders about the impact of the recent natural gas boom on the sector.
“’As much as I love sun, I hate the solar space. This is not a real business, it’s a political construct,’” Cortes said on Fast Money Wednesday. “’And they can’t compete with natural gas at these levels.’”
According to the Associated Press the U.S. now has 2.433 trillion cubic feet in storage.
“That figure is 48.3 percent more than the five-year average, the Energy Department said,” reports the AP. “Natural gas fell 3 cents to finish at $2.27 per 1,000 cubic feet in New York. The price has fallen about 27 percent this year and is at the lowest level in a decade.”
Last week Abound Solar announced it would lay off half its workforce despite receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy last year. The rating agency Fitch’s hit Abound over failures to meet stated goals, old technology, calling the company “highly speculative” according toABCNews.
Reports ABC:
It remains way too early to determine whether Abound is poised to follow the trajectory of the best-known solar manufacturer to receive a sizeable government loan -- Solyndra, the California firm that filed for bankruptcy in September after having burned through the bulk of its $535 million federal loan. Perhaps.
However, there is an old saying in the market that the tape doesn’t lie.
And the tape on solar companies is horrendous.
In the second quarter of 2008 First Solar (Symbol: FSLR) briefly touched $300 per share. Today it trades at $27.49. That equals losses of about $24 billion in market capitalization in just four years.
In April of last year Trina Solar LTD (Symbol: TSL) was trading just under $30 and is now trading at about $7.31. Earnings estimates have gone in the last few months from Trina losing about 17 cents per share for 2012 to losing about 63 cents per share.
The Guggenheim Solar ETF (Symbol: TAN) has also moved down from around $300 per share in mid 2008, until it trades now at $27.02.
And the fundamentals aren’t getting better for solar soon, because solar can’t compete with coal-fired or nuclear generated electric.
“Fewer solar panels will be installed this year,” reports Bloomberg “as the first drop in more than a decade worsens a glut of the unsold devices that’s already slashed margins at the top five manufacturers, an analyst survey showed... Without government incentives, even record low prices for solar panels may not be cheap enough to encourage solar farm developers and homeowners to install them in the volumes needed to work through the glut, said Rozwadowski, the most pessimistic analyst in the survey. He expects installations to drop to 20.7 gigawatts.”
It’s important to note that the poor performance of the solar industry came at a time when government financial support has been at an all-time high world-wide. It only goes to show that politics and public policy are poor substitutes for free market economics.
Expect the solar industry to continue to crash and burn as government money continues to dry up along with public support.
Source: John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance.
Water Problems
The Era of Cheap and Abundant Clean Water Is Coming to a Close
By Lee Bellinger
I've got something important today for both preppers and investors!
Let's start with the clueless general public's expectation of cheap, available water at their fingertips in perpetuity. The situation flows like a river of potential profit! After all, we've enjoyed a lifetime of turning on a tap and having access to as much clean water as we want for drinking, cooking, or cleaning – and at a relatively negligible cost.
Yet that's not the norm globally. Today, aged U.S. water systems are near the top of the list in terms of our nation's antiquated infrastructure.
Unfortunately, our public school system has yielded a generation of bubble-brains. Which I define as people who don't pay attention to the world around them and have no critical thinking skills. They devour whatever crapola and excuses the political class feeds them. One of the biggest unreported stories of our time is the rise of global shortages of clean, potable water close to major population centers. Another political mess – decades in the making!
Thirty years of expanding green regulations and other artificial legal hurdles have diverted money away from investment in water reclamation and treatment technology.
The result is a brittle supply system that most of us won't notice until, well, it fails to the point that it actually inconveniences people. And when it causes food prices to rise (as it is already doing), most won't make the connection. More on this in a moment.
The population control people blame fresh water depletion on growing population levels. But as with energy and most other shortages, the root causes are mostly political.
Take agricultural squandering of fresh water due to political boondoggles like corn-based ethanol. Estimates show that producing a gallon of gasoline uses 2.5 gallons of water, while ethanol refineries use about 4.2 gallons of water to produce the same gallon of fuel.
Don't overlook the need to hedge yourself against shortages and price spikes in this most essential life-giving resource of all. Whether you personally are dependent on a municipal water source or get it for "free" from your own private well, the reality is that the costs of obtaining and transporting water are built into the costs of all food products and many other things people consume.
Ongoing, Severe Droughts and Weather Patterns – Temporary but Costly...
The U.S. Climate Prediction Center (CPC) says we can expect, "considerable month-to-month variations in temperature, rainfall, and storminess across central North America during the winter and spring seasons." Long-term weather analysts say it's possible to experience "average" monthly temperatures, but it would be the result of an average of extremes – severe cold balanced with unusual heat.
These variations in weather are due in large part to a strong La Nina. According to global weather expert Evelyn Browning Garriss, "The most important result of a strong La Nina... is the change in precipitation. The Pacific jet stream is veering north. It mingles with the Arctic jet stream, creating more moisture in the north. It also creates more droughts in the southern U.S...
"At this point, 43% of the contiguous United States is in drought and 8.1% is facing the most extreme conditions. Almost all of this land is in the South, the regions that normally can produce winter crops. In a time of rising food prices, our lands that normally can still grow food are paralyzed by drought. This will also have profound effects on energy prices."
La Nina-caused drought is expected to continue at least through the first half of 2012. So far, Texas has gotten the bulk of the press regarding the U.S. drought because of its very visual wildfires. However, the impacts on agricultural production today and the near future are equally devastating:
The drought has caused $5.3 billion in losses in the agricultural sector and counting;
Texas produces about 50 percent of U.S. cotton (the U.S. grows up to 25% of world cotton) and yields from irrigated crops have dropped nearly 60 percent;
Texas is the largest U.S. producer of beef. Garriss says severe weather and long-term drought is forcing ranchers to "sell off large parts of their herds as the grass dries and water becomes scarce," while others buy hay from "farms a thousand miles away, despite the high cost of shipping."
Staying with the beef example for a moment, retail beef prices rose 10% in 2011 to reach an all-time high, and are forecast to climb another 4-5% in 2012. Live cattle prices are up 20% in the past year. While some grocery chains claim to be "absorbing the difference," there's little doubt they are making up their losses in the other aisles of the store. Some ranchers report double-digit profit growth and say they are investing their windfall in – you guessed it – improving their water supply resources.
Water Costs Rise 2 to 3 Times... Even without Drought
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recently released a report that found that fixing and expanding the U.S. underground drinking water system will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years. This investment to keep water flowing will translate into a double or triple increase in water bills.
The problem is with a soft economy, much of the needed investment, repairs, and expansions are being delayed. Putting off the work will almost guarantee higher costs in the future. The association calculates that spending on water systems will double from $13 billion a year today to $30 billion a year in 2040. New York City alone is spending $6 billion constructing a new water-supply tunnel, a public-works project so massive that 24 people have died in construction-related accidents.
According to the AWWA report: "Because pipe assets last a long time, water systems that were built in the later part of the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century have, for the most part, never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale... The dawn of an era in which the assets will need to be replaced puts growing stress on communities that will continue to increase for decades to come."
Do Water Related Companies Need a Catalyst to Explode in Profitability?
The U.S. water infrastructure is in disrepair and in need of large amounts of direct investment to fix it, improve it, and take America into the future.
Investing in water related projects is something not often talked about, despite its importance and profit potential. Water is the one commodity that has no replacement in agriculture, industry, or in our daily lives.
Quinlan believes there could soon be a catalyst that wakes up the investment community. One would be an active M&A market where large conglomerates pay big money for smaller, unknown water-related companies, and the other is an ominous level of demand that cannot be ignored:
"One day California doesn't have enough water to drive its agriculture sector... or China announces, 'we're going to grow at 4% growth instead of 8% growth because we don't have enough water for our agriculture industry or residential use.'" That day is fast approaching, and probably already here...
Lee Bellinger, Publisher Independent Living
By Lee Bellinger
I've got something important today for both preppers and investors!
Let's start with the clueless general public's expectation of cheap, available water at their fingertips in perpetuity. The situation flows like a river of potential profit! After all, we've enjoyed a lifetime of turning on a tap and having access to as much clean water as we want for drinking, cooking, or cleaning – and at a relatively negligible cost.
Yet that's not the norm globally. Today, aged U.S. water systems are near the top of the list in terms of our nation's antiquated infrastructure.
Unfortunately, our public school system has yielded a generation of bubble-brains. Which I define as people who don't pay attention to the world around them and have no critical thinking skills. They devour whatever crapola and excuses the political class feeds them. One of the biggest unreported stories of our time is the rise of global shortages of clean, potable water close to major population centers. Another political mess – decades in the making!
Thirty years of expanding green regulations and other artificial legal hurdles have diverted money away from investment in water reclamation and treatment technology.
The result is a brittle supply system that most of us won't notice until, well, it fails to the point that it actually inconveniences people. And when it causes food prices to rise (as it is already doing), most won't make the connection. More on this in a moment.
The population control people blame fresh water depletion on growing population levels. But as with energy and most other shortages, the root causes are mostly political.
Take agricultural squandering of fresh water due to political boondoggles like corn-based ethanol. Estimates show that producing a gallon of gasoline uses 2.5 gallons of water, while ethanol refineries use about 4.2 gallons of water to produce the same gallon of fuel.
Don't overlook the need to hedge yourself against shortages and price spikes in this most essential life-giving resource of all. Whether you personally are dependent on a municipal water source or get it for "free" from your own private well, the reality is that the costs of obtaining and transporting water are built into the costs of all food products and many other things people consume.
Ongoing, Severe Droughts and Weather Patterns – Temporary but Costly...
The U.S. Climate Prediction Center (CPC) says we can expect, "considerable month-to-month variations in temperature, rainfall, and storminess across central North America during the winter and spring seasons." Long-term weather analysts say it's possible to experience "average" monthly temperatures, but it would be the result of an average of extremes – severe cold balanced with unusual heat.
These variations in weather are due in large part to a strong La Nina. According to global weather expert Evelyn Browning Garriss, "The most important result of a strong La Nina... is the change in precipitation. The Pacific jet stream is veering north. It mingles with the Arctic jet stream, creating more moisture in the north. It also creates more droughts in the southern U.S...
"At this point, 43% of the contiguous United States is in drought and 8.1% is facing the most extreme conditions. Almost all of this land is in the South, the regions that normally can produce winter crops. In a time of rising food prices, our lands that normally can still grow food are paralyzed by drought. This will also have profound effects on energy prices."
La Nina-caused drought is expected to continue at least through the first half of 2012. So far, Texas has gotten the bulk of the press regarding the U.S. drought because of its very visual wildfires. However, the impacts on agricultural production today and the near future are equally devastating:
The drought has caused $5.3 billion in losses in the agricultural sector and counting;
Texas produces about 50 percent of U.S. cotton (the U.S. grows up to 25% of world cotton) and yields from irrigated crops have dropped nearly 60 percent;
Texas is the largest U.S. producer of beef. Garriss says severe weather and long-term drought is forcing ranchers to "sell off large parts of their herds as the grass dries and water becomes scarce," while others buy hay from "farms a thousand miles away, despite the high cost of shipping."
Staying with the beef example for a moment, retail beef prices rose 10% in 2011 to reach an all-time high, and are forecast to climb another 4-5% in 2012. Live cattle prices are up 20% in the past year. While some grocery chains claim to be "absorbing the difference," there's little doubt they are making up their losses in the other aisles of the store. Some ranchers report double-digit profit growth and say they are investing their windfall in – you guessed it – improving their water supply resources.
Water Costs Rise 2 to 3 Times... Even without Drought
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recently released a report that found that fixing and expanding the U.S. underground drinking water system will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years. This investment to keep water flowing will translate into a double or triple increase in water bills.
The problem is with a soft economy, much of the needed investment, repairs, and expansions are being delayed. Putting off the work will almost guarantee higher costs in the future. The association calculates that spending on water systems will double from $13 billion a year today to $30 billion a year in 2040. New York City alone is spending $6 billion constructing a new water-supply tunnel, a public-works project so massive that 24 people have died in construction-related accidents.
According to the AWWA report: "Because pipe assets last a long time, water systems that were built in the later part of the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century have, for the most part, never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale... The dawn of an era in which the assets will need to be replaced puts growing stress on communities that will continue to increase for decades to come."
Do Water Related Companies Need a Catalyst to Explode in Profitability?
The U.S. water infrastructure is in disrepair and in need of large amounts of direct investment to fix it, improve it, and take America into the future.
Investing in water related projects is something not often talked about, despite its importance and profit potential. Water is the one commodity that has no replacement in agriculture, industry, or in our daily lives.
Quinlan believes there could soon be a catalyst that wakes up the investment community. One would be an active M&A market where large conglomerates pay big money for smaller, unknown water-related companies, and the other is an ominous level of demand that cannot be ignored:
"One day California doesn't have enough water to drive its agriculture sector... or China announces, 'we're going to grow at 4% growth instead of 8% growth because we don't have enough water for our agriculture industry or residential use.'" That day is fast approaching, and probably already here...
Lee Bellinger, Publisher Independent Living
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Euro crisis solved? I don't think so!
by Larry Edelson
Many already think that the European sovereign debt crisis is passing. That the latest bond deal and bailout for Greece solves everything. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.
First, severe austerity measures do not create growth. So there's no way Greece can grow its way out of its debt morass, even after the latest debt write-downs.
The proof is simple math. Before the Greek crisis flared up, debt-to-GDP in Greece stood at 120%. Today — and I repeat, even after all the write-offs — Greek debt-to-GDP stands somewhere north of a whopping 160%.
That's more than 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the crisis — and the austerity measures are literally causing the Greek economy to implode, creating some of the worst social chaos we have seen in modern times.
Second, Italy, Portugal and Spain still remain vulnerable dominos. Each and every one of them is in hock way over their heads. And each and every one of them is just beginning to feel the impact of austerity measures.
Unemployment among youth is as much as 25%. Corporate and personal bankruptcies are surging. Social discontent is on the rise again. And tensions between countries within Europe are as high as ever.
Source: Uncommon Wisdom, Monday, March 12, 2012
Many already think that the European sovereign debt crisis is passing. That the latest bond deal and bailout for Greece solves everything. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.
First, severe austerity measures do not create growth. So there's no way Greece can grow its way out of its debt morass, even after the latest debt write-downs.
The proof is simple math. Before the Greek crisis flared up, debt-to-GDP in Greece stood at 120%. Today — and I repeat, even after all the write-offs — Greek debt-to-GDP stands somewhere north of a whopping 160%.
That's more than 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the crisis — and the austerity measures are literally causing the Greek economy to implode, creating some of the worst social chaos we have seen in modern times.
Second, Italy, Portugal and Spain still remain vulnerable dominos. Each and every one of them is in hock way over their heads. And each and every one of them is just beginning to feel the impact of austerity measures.
Unemployment among youth is as much as 25%. Corporate and personal bankruptcies are surging. Social discontent is on the rise again. And tensions between countries within Europe are as high as ever.
Source: Uncommon Wisdom, Monday, March 12, 2012
1938 Austria
This Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away
By: Kitty Werthmann
What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.
I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force. In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.
The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.
We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise.
We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.
Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler. We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.
Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.
Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:
Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.
Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it.
Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had. My mother was very unhappy.
When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
Equal Rights Hits Home:
In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death.
Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps.
After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.
Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.
Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.
When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn.
There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine.
Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
"Mercy Killing" Redefined:
In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months.
We called this euthanasia.
The Final Steps - Gun Laws:
Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.
After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.
"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away, "After America , There is No Place to Go"
The author of this article lives in South Dakota and appears to be very active in attempting to maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it along. I see so many parallels in this country - are we going to sit by and watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote them out if they don't do what they should. If you don't want to be bothered, then you're part of the problem!
By: Kitty Werthmann
What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.
I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force. In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.
The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.
We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise.
We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.
Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler. We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.
Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.
Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:
Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.
Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it.
Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had. My mother was very unhappy.
When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.
Equal Rights Hits Home:
In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death.
Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps.
After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.
Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.
Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:
When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:
Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.
When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn.
There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine.
Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.
"Mercy Killing" Redefined:
In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months.
We called this euthanasia.
The Final Steps - Gun Laws:
Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.
After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.
"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away, "After America , There is No Place to Go"
The author of this article lives in South Dakota and appears to be very active in attempting to maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it along. I see so many parallels in this country - are we going to sit by and watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote them out if they don't do what they should. If you don't want to be bothered, then you're part of the problem!
Monday, March 12, 2012
EPA Abuse 'Your land is our land'
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK EPA to property owner: 'Your land is our land' $40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home
________________________________________
Posted: September 23, 2011 9:50 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND
Mike and Chantell Sackett
Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.
That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.
Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.
"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"
The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."
"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""
The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:
The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.
The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.
Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.
Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."
"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."
No matter, said the government. Do what we want.
So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.
Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.
The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.
The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."
"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"
The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."
"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.
Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.
"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and the restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"
The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."
"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.
"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.
"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"
The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.
"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."
The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.
"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress didn’t end for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the EPA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."
Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."
"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.
Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.
"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.
"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."
Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."
"Even if you have a good basis to think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."
That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.
And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.
EPA officials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.
The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.
"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argued.
Source: WND
Comment: This case is scheduled for a Supreme Court hearing this Spring, 2012.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
________________________________________
Posted: September 23, 2011 9:50 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND
Mike and Chantell Sackett
Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.
That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.
Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.
"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"
The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."
"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""
The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:
The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.
The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.
Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.
Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."
"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."
No matter, said the government. Do what we want.
So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.
Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.
The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.
The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."
"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"
The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."
"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.
Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.
"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and the restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"
The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."
"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.
"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.
"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"
The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.
"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."
The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.
"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress didn’t end for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the EPA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."
Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."
"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.
Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.
"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.
"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."
Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."
"Even if you have a good basis to think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."
That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.
And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.
EPA officials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.
The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.
"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argued.
Source: WND
Comment: This case is scheduled for a Supreme Court hearing this Spring, 2012.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)