Saturday, September 18, 2010

You and I both know that howdy doody has got more sense that barack obama or any of the Liberal democrates in congress


(You and I both know that howdy doody has got more sense that barack obama or any of the Liberal democrates in congress. So even if howdy doody is supported by the tea party patriots it makes more sense than supporting barack obama and his fellow thugs. Its howdy doody time obama!)

It seems Christine O’Donnell is "howdy doody". She was a "created" tv character. Now she is a senate candidate. Obama is a created character. Like I said even howdy doody makes more sense than obama. I would prefer to choose someone other than howdy doody. Which would you pick? Howdy doody or obama? If I could only choose between the two I would pick howdy doody every time. Its howdy doody time, its howdy doody time, its howdy doody time, its howdy doody time boys and girls in the peanut voting gallery.

Story Reports
.......................................................................................

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Every mayor in attendance signed the UN the Green Cities Declaration

ICLEI is a foreign organization on a mission to transform local governments. Each ICLEI mandate, policy and agenda is based on the principle that the collective good is more important than individual rights; this in direct opposition to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Public Policy throughout America is implementing the global political‐economic program referred to as Sustainable Development. Most Americans do not know or understand the integrated policy and philosophy of Sustainable Development.

Illegitimate government
Green Cities, Cool Mayors = Red Ink, Dead Culture

At the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco on June 5 (World Environment Day), 2005, two documents - the "Green Cities Declaration" and the "Urban Environmental Accords" - were presented. Every mayor in attendance signed them, and because of that, every citizen in America is threatened. The elected officials have signed on (knowingly or not) to the destruction of property rights and the U.S. Constitution, and now individual citizens must arm themselves with the knowledge of the problem, educate their fellow citizens, and take back their cities. With knowledge about Green Cities and Sustainable Development, we are going to be the solution.

At the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco on June 5 (World Environment Day), 2005, two documents - the "Green Cities Declaration" and the "Urban Environmental Accords" - were presented. Every mayor in attendance signed them. Because of that, every citizen in America is threatened.

The two documents are part and parcel of the United Nations’ Agenda 21. The first is the declaration that the mayors of all the cities of the United States and the world are going to be the implementers of Agenda 21. The second explains how it will be implemented, closing with the statement “The goal is for cities to pick three actions to adopt each year.”

If the cities achieve the goal of implementing three actions each year from 2005, they will have completed their 21 Actions in the seven years leading up to June 5, 2012, the date of World Environment Day. And what exactly will each city have achieved by then if they have completed each of the 21 Actions set out in the Green Cities/Green Mayors plan?

They will have received 21 green stars. That’s it. Besides being in deep debt and having taken away their citizens’ rights along with their property.

While the website for Green Cities touts cost savings, jobs creation and happy citizens, the reality is just the opposite. Seven areas that comprise three actions each make up the 21 “practical” actions called for in the Accords. The seven areas are energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health and water.

Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take the following actions:

● Strive to meet or beat the Koyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use
policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns. (Read that as stack-em' and pack em' housing,
use of eminent domain to take private property – developed or not – and replace it with tiny surveillance-monitored 'parks' and
greenswards, and indoctrination campaigns at all levels from schools to workplace to media.)

● Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas
emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol – 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012.

● Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission
trading system – Waxman-Markey.

Since that meeting in 2005, the total number of U.S. mayors to sign on has passed 900.

But because not every mayor in every city has not yet signed on to Green Cities, local citizens are asked to take charge of the project for their cities and move them forward.

Some mayors have turned down the offer of being a "Cool Mayor." One suggests that the program “appears likely to lose its way and simply redistribute wealth in the state.” Whoa, that mayor can read between the lines.

A columnist in Michigan wrote that, “While some may argue that it is logical to provide this type of funding (the program offers $100,000 ‘catalyst grants’ to big cities while offering small towns matching grants) to larger cities, it is important to remember that past state and local government efforts to stimulate economic growth in larger cities have failed. . . . The governor’s attempts to revitalize Michigan’s economy through the Cool Cities initiative might seem honorable, but it is ironic that the state is handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars in dubious grants at a time when legislators are debating the per-pupil funding for schools, money for higher education and restraining Medicaid benefits. It should shift its focus to providing a secure environment that is open to new business by restructuring the single business tax, rationalizing its regulatory environment and removing other roadblocks to economic development.”1 So at least one person in Michigan sees where this is going.

Calling for cities to increase renewable energy to meet ten percent of the city’s peak electric load within seven years expects a lot from the cities and even more from renewal energy sources. The cities will have to fork out a lot of money to provide that much renewable energy because it is still prohibitively expensive technology. And where are they going to install the equipment needed to produce this energy? On every roof in the city? And in public parks? And on baseball, football and soccer fields? Where do they expect to find the other 100+ acres they will need?

According to Paul Driessen, “Spain increased its installed wind-power capacity to 10% of its total electricity, although actual energy output is 10% to 30% of this, or 1% to 3% of total electricity, because the wind is intermittent and unreliable. “Still, Spain spent $3.7 billion on the program in 2007 alone, King Juan Carlos University economics professor Gabriel Calzada determined. It created 50,000 jobs, mostly installing wind turbines, at $73,000 in annual subsidies per job — and 10,000 of these jobs have already been terminated. Spain's economic problems put the remaining 40,000 jobs at risk. Meanwhile, soaring electricity prices forced other businesses to cut 2.2 jobs for every"green" job created, says Calzada. Spain's unemployment rate is now 17% and rising.2

As to Waste Reduction, the mayors are told to establish a policy to achieve zero waste to landfills and incinerators by 2040. One must assume that the United Nations knows something we don’t -- like the technology to achieve this will be invented in the very near future.

Skipping down to Environmental Health, our mayors are told that every year they must identify one product, chemical, or compound that is used within the city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law and provide incentives to reduce or eliminate its use. Cities already ban those things that are deleterious to the health of its citizens, so how are they to find things to ban?

The Supreme Court just decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Humans breathe out carbon dioxide, in fact breathing produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person. I guess the cities could begin by banning people to achieve the Environmental Health goal.

And when these cities have banned three products a year for so many years, they will eventually have to start banning good things. In fact, most cities will run out of actual things to ban in the first year. Will they then emulate Anchorage in the '90s when the EPA mandated that all water districts remove a certain percentage of pollutants from their water supply? Because Anchorage’s water was so clean naturally, they had to dump the refuse from fish canneries into the water so they could turn around and remove it in order to comply with the EPA mandate.

So where does all this anti-human nonsense come from? Why would anyone, any mayor, want to afflict their community with destruction of property rights, while reducing energy consumption and simultaneously raising the cost of energy?

At the beginning, I referred to the source of the threat to our way of life, the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

Chapter 5 of the U.N.’s Agenda 21 states:

The growth of world population and production combined with unsustainable consumption patterns places increasingly severe stress on the life-supporting capacities of our planet. These interactive processes affect the use of land, water, air, energy and other resources. Rapidly growing cities, unless well-managed, face major environmental problems. The increase in both the number and size of cities calls for greater attention to issues of local government and municipal management. The human dimensions are key elements to consider in this intricate set of relationships and they should be adequately taken into consideration in comprehensive policies for sustainable development.

Population policy should also recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns. There is a need to increase awareness of this issue among decision makers at all levels and to provide both better information on which to base national and international policies and a framework against which to interpret this information.

So we have the “information on which to base national and international policies and a framework against which to interpret this information.” Agenda 21 mandates all of this and more. They rail against the number and size of our cities while at the same time they are rounding us up from the suburbs and rural areas and cramming us into the cities so the land we now occupy can “go back to its natural state” (read: without human presence debasing its perfection).

Then note the hint at population policy – that the teeming multitudes (us) they have forced into the cities must be culled. But they haven’t directly – yet – told us how the will handle that problem.

And now the mayors are implementing the anti-human, anti-property rights programs called Sustainable Development devised by the United Nations with the assistance of ICLEI and other NGOs (non-governmental organizations).3

One has to wonder if any of the mayors and city legislators truly comprehend what they are seemingly so whole-heartedly endorsing. If they do, they must understand that they are destroying their cities; businesses will close and residents will loose their homes, thus the tax base will dry up. A city cannot survive without the taxes derived from businesses and property owners.

So how will these mayors survive? Do they have buried gold? Or have they thought that far ahead? And do they realize that their positions are to be taken over by non-elected entities connected to the U.N.?

If the mayors do not understand what they have signed onto, if they have stuck their heads in the sand and gone along for the sake of political correctness, they deserve what they get but their constituents do not.

This brings it all down to the lowest common denominator, the citizen. Because the elected officials have signed on (knowingly or not) to the destruction of property rights and the U.S. Constitution, Joe and Jane Doe have to take it upon themselves to correct the situation. They must arm themselves with the knowledge of the problem, educate their fellow citizens, and take back their cities. We are the Joe and Janes. With knowledge about Green Cities and Sustainable Development, we are going to be the solution.

REFERENCE (from the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords

21 Actions to be implemented by Green Cities

Energy: Renewable Energy | Energy Efficiency | Climate Change

Action 1 Adopt and implement a policy to increase the use of renewable energy to meet ten per cent of the city’s peak electrical load within seven years.

Action 2 Adopt and implement a policy to reduce the city’s peak electric load by ten per cent within seven years through energy efficiency, shifting the timing of energy demands, and conservation measures.

Action 3 Adopt a citywide green house gas reduction plan that reduces the jurisdictions emissions by twenty five percent by 2030, and which includes a system for accounting and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.

Waste Reduction: Zero Waste | Manufacturer Responsibility | Consumer Responsibility

Action 4 Establish a policy to achieve zero waste to landfills and incinerators by 2040.

Action 5 Adopt a citywide law that reduces the use of a disposable, toxic or non-renewable product category by at least fifty per cent in seven years.

Action 6 Implemented “user-friendly” recycling and composting programs, with the goal of reducing by twenty per cent per capita solid waste disposal to landfill and incineration in seven years.

Urban Design: Green Building | Urban Planning | Slums

Action 7 Adopt a policy that mandates a green building rating system standard that applies to all new municipal buildings.

Action 8 Adopt urban planning principles that advance higher density, mixed use, walkable, bikeable and disabled-accessible neighborhoods which coordinate land use and transportation with open space systems for recreation and ecological restoration.

Action 9 Adopt a policy or implement a program that creates environmentally beneficial jobs in slums and/or low-income neighborhoods.

Urban Nature: Parks| Habitat Restoration | Wildlife

Action 10 Ensure that there is an accessible park or recreational open space within half-a-kilometer of every city resident by 2015.

Action 11 Conduct an inventory of existing canopy coverage in the city; and then establish a goal based on ecological and community considerations to plant and maintain canopy coverage in not less than fifty per cent of all available sidewalk plating sites.

Action 12 Pass legislation that protects critical habitat corridors and other key habitat characteristics (e.g., water features, food bearing plants, shelter for wildlife, use of native species, etc.) from unsustainable development.

Transportation: Public Transportation | Clean Vehicles | Reducing Congestion

Action 13 Develop and implement a policy which expands affordable public transportation coverage to within half-a-kilometer of all city residents in ten years.

Action 14 Pass a law or implement a program that eliminates leaded gasoline (where it is still used); and that phases down sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels, concurrent with using advanced emission controls on all buses, taxis, and public fleets to reduce particulate matter and smog-forming emissions from those fleets by fifty per cent in seven years.

Action 15 Implement a policy to reduce the percentage of commute trips by single occupancy vehicles by ten per cent in seven years.

Environmental Health: Toxics Reduction | Healthy Food Systems | Clean Air

Action 16 Every year, identify one product, chemicals, or compounds that is used within the city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law to provide incentives to reduce or eliminate its use by the municipal government.

Action 17 Promote the public health and environmental benefits of supporting organic foods. Ensure that twenty per cent of all city facilities (including schools) serve locally grown and organic food within seven years.

Action 18 Establish an Air Quality Index (AQI) to measure the level of air pollution and set the goal of reducing by ten per cent in seven years the number of days categorized in the AQI range as "unhealthy" to"hazardous."

Water: Water Access & Efficiency | Source Water Conservation | Waste Water Reduction

Action 19 Develop policies to increase adequate access to safe drinking water, aiming at access for all by 2015. For cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day, adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by ten per cent by 2015.

Action 20 Protect the ecological integrity of the city’s primary drinking water sources (i.e., aquifers, rivers, lakes, wetlands and associated eco-systems).

Action 21 Adopt municipal wastewater management guidelines and reduce the volume of untreated wastewater discharge by ten per cent in seven years through the expanded use of recycled water and the implementation of sustainable urban watershed planning process that includes participants of all affected communities and is based on sound economic, social, and environmental principles.


At the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco on June 5 (World Environment Day), 2005, two documents - the "Green Cities Declaration" and the "Urban Environmental Accords" - were presented. Every mayor in attendance signed them, and because of that, every citizen in America is threatened. The elected officials have signed on (knowingly or not) to the destruction of property rights and the U.S. Constitution, and now individual citizens must arm themselves with the knowledge of the problem, educate their fellow citizens, and take back their cities. With knowledge about Green Cities and Sustainable Development, we are going to be the solution.

"Consensus" meetings have predetermined outcomes. They pretend to garner community input.

Here are some local examples, of 'regional' consensus meetings to implement UN agenda 21 by urging local business to implement the UN plan.

September Coffee & Conversation

Date: September 22, 2010 - September 22, 2010

Coffee & Conversation is a monthly event for Upstate SC Alliance Contributors. Each month the UA brings in experts from across the region/state to share their expertise on a variety of topics.

Euphoria / Fall Consultant Event

Date: September 24, 2010 - September 26, 2010

Now in its 4th year, Euphoria is a weekend festival celebrating food, wine and music. The Upstate SC Alliance will utilize this event as an inbound mission for companies and Centers of Influence. Participation is limited.

Q3 Contributor Networking Event

Date: September 15, 2010 - September 15, 2010

Q3 Contributor Networking Event.

Every one of the 30 lawmakers who voted against "obamacare" and is seeking another term won re-nomination


There isn’t any such thing as an Anti Obama-Care Democrat. There are only Liars and Thieves. The thieving liars won their primaries tuesday. There are those smart enough to lie about being “anti” in order to try and get re-elected. These will suddenly see the light following November’s wins for the Dems and return to the Obama-coven and again take up their support for the IMPOSTER obama.

Every one of the 30 lawmakers who voted against "obamacare" and is seeking another term won re-nomination.

After 34 House Democrats voted against the health care bill in March, liberal groups and their allies in the labor movement vowed to exact revenge.

The threats ranged from crippling primary election challenges to a withdrawal of support for some of the offending lawmakers. In a few cases, activists even went so far as to say they would run third-party candidates against the Democrats in November.

But five months later, the group of 34 has emerged from primary season not much worse for the wear. Every one of the 30 lawmakers who voted against the health care bill and is seeking another term won re-nomination.

The last of the group to be tested, Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch, won his primary Tuesday, dispatching former Service Employees International Union Regional Political Director Mac D’Alessandro.

“The last man standing — the last primary challenger to a Democrat who voted against the health care bill,” is how D’Alessandro labeled himself in a recent post on the liberal Daily Kos website.

What a perfect Democrat standard-bearer. A SEIU thug who is also a Daily Kos writer.

While they may have dodged a bullet during primary season, it’s not entirely clear what effect the no votes will have in November. Some of Democrats still must confront residual resentment from party activists whose support will be critical to their political survival on Election Day.

(A democrate that votes against obama is still a democrate. A anti obama vote is commendable. A egg sucking Liberal democrate dog that votes against obama is still an egg sucking democrate Liberal Dog! Even a Liberal democrate dog can learn a new trick.) Story Reports

The 911 phone calls from the hijacked plane were never made according to the FBI




UPDATE: some of the links below have changed or been hidden in an attempt to hide the truth.


Please visit http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/#N_14 This link has the proof there were NEVER any phone calls that connected from flight 77 to Ted Olsen!

Barbera Olsen wife of Ted Olsen NEVER talked to him on a cell phone during flight 77. Ted Olsen LIED as did George Bush about the flight 77 phone calls.

The entire "offical" story of what happened on 911 is based on a LIE!

(The smell test has been done on some of the information below and the test indicates the facts propagated in the state run media stink. The 911 phone calls were never made according to the FBI. The FBI has changed its story about the 911 phone calls several times. All the information about box cutters etc was made up. This along with the fact the airspace over New York City and Washington, DC was intentionally left unprotected by the military agency tasked to protect it is big big evidence 911 was a setup.) Story Reports

September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on America

The airspace over New York City and Washington, DC was intentionally left unprotected by the military agency tasked to protect it. That group is the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson Lied about 9/11: FBI Now Admits his Wife Couldn’t Have Called Him from Hijacked Plane

(If this is true it would be big big evidence to me that the 911 attack in New York and Washington was a setup. I do know that ted olson lied about his wife making phone calls to him on 911. The FBI admits this.

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10,” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008

the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred

And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.)

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”

This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “(t)he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”., and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.[14. Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008

The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?

Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

(I agree the cell phone calls on 911 that never occurred point to a government deception. The police state "homeland security" laws were a result of 911. The information about what occurred on 911 has been disputed by the FBI.) Story Reports

U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson Lied about 9/11: FBI Now Admits his Wife Couldn’t Have Called Him from Hijacked Plane

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany

UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You

The highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany

Just as America is passing through a period of economic stress, the Nazis in the 1930s sought to tap into the German psyche and a “return to nature” myth was seen as a unifying measure. The same regime that would later create the means to systematically kill Europe’s Jews shared a lot in common with any number of present-day environmentalist leaders and academics.
.......................................................................................

Nazi Dreams were Green Dreams

Alan Caruba

In a week when Jews will celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the New Year–5771, the connection between the Nazi’s rebellion against the Judeo-Christian worldview and the present-day ideology that drives the environmental movement needs to be exposed.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and elsewhere around the world, driven in part by the Islamic hatred of Jews, but also reflected in the liberal antipathy to corporations and the financial community, often portrayed as “Jewish bankers”, as history’s favorite scapegoat for economic problems. The situation mirrors Germany in the 1930s.

Few know of the connection, but it is spelled out in “Nazi Oaks” by R. Mark Musser ($12.75, Advantage Books, softcover, via Amazon.com). Thanks to his research we learn that “the highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany. By 1935, the Third Reich was the greenest regime on the planet.”

“It is no coincidence that sweeping Nazi environmental legislation preceded the racially charged anti-Semitic Nuremburg Laws.”

In the decades during which I have seen the rise of the environmental movement in America I have also seen its inherent totalitarian drive to not merely alter society, but to completely control the lives of all Americans. It is fundamentally an attack on the American credo of individual freedom and it has become commonplace to suggest that environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion.

Mark Musser is a 1989 graduate from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, widely regarded as one of the premier environmental institutions in the nation. In 1994, he received a Master of Divinity from Western Seminary in Portland and, for seven years, was a missionary in Belarus and the Ukraine. He is currently a pastor.

The history spelled out in Musser’s book needs to be understood in terms of what is occurring in America today. The title of the book comes from the fact that, “With the oak tree being such a powerful symbol of German nationalism and the German natural landscape, Hitler had oaks planted all over the Reich in hundreds of towns and villages.” The practice was dubbed by Nazi environmentalists as “concordant with the spirit of the Fuhrer.”

Just as America is passing through a period of economic stress, the Nazis in the 1930s sought to tap into the German psyche and a “return to nature” myth was seen as a unifying measure. The same regime that would later create the means to systematically kill Europe’s Jews shared a lot in common with any number of present-day environmentalist leaders and academics.

Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, is on record saying, “Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program, said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our duty to bring that about?” When you contemplate the many measures taken by the U.S. government against the mining of coal, the drilling for oil, and even the shutdown of a nuclear waste repository, is it not obvious that denying America the energy it requires is one way to destroy its economy?

In one chilling way in particular, the hatred of the human race, does the environmental movement reflect the Nazi’s merciless destruction, not only of Jews, but of millions of others consigned to its concentration camps and the relentless killing wherever they sought conquest.

This is why the Club of Rome could say, “The earth has a cancer and the cancer is Man.” How does this differ from Hitler’s many expressions of hatred for Jews and others, Africans and Asians that he deemed to be “sub-human”?

This is the naked face of environmentalism.

Remember, too, this did not happen a long time ago. The “greatest generation”, some of whom still live, fought the Nazi regime a scant seventy years ago.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic warns that “it should be clear by now to everyone that environmental activism is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a ‘noble’ idea.”

Couple that with a torrent of falsified “science” and you have the modern environmental movement.

The single greatest threat to freedom in America is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s current efforts to acquire the authority to regulate a gas that is responsible along with oxygen for all life on Earth, carbon dioxide (CO2).

If the EPA gets that control, it will be able to determine every aspect of life in America because it is the use of electricity, industrial and all other machine-based technology that generates carbon dioxide.

And it is the Big Lie that CO2 is causing global warming that is being used to justify the agency’s quest. There is no global warming. The Earth is in a natural cooling cycle.

The Nazi regime was made up of animal rights advocates, environmentalists, and vegetarians, of which Hitler was all three.

And it led ultimately to mass murder.