Archive for the ‘Environmental Issues’ Category

GREEN FUNERALS / HUMAN COMPOSTING

Tuesday, June 18th, 2019

 

This has to be the most disturbing article I have ever read.  Evidently, liberals lack a respect for the dead as they lack respect for the unborn.  Several states are trying to pass laws that require proper burials for aborted babies so they won’t be thrown away with medical waste and the liberals are fighting even fighting that law.  Tell me again how liberalism is  supposed to be all about compassion and caring.  Nancy

Washington becomes first state to legalize ‘green funerals’

Process composts human remains into soil

In this April 19, 2019, file photo, Katrina Spade, the founder and CEO of Recompose, a company that hopes to use composting as an alternative to burying or cremating human remains, poses for a photo in a cemetery in Seattle, as she displays a sample of compost material left from the decomposition of a cow using a combination of wood chips, alfalfa and straw. On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill into law that allows licensed facilities to offer “natural organic reduction,” which turns a body, mixed with substances such as wood chips and straw, into soil in a span of several weeks. Th law makes Washington the first state in the U.S. to approve composting as an alternative to burying or cremating human remains. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File) **FILE**
By Dan Boylan – The Washington Times – Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Washington has become the first state to legalize “green funerals” — the process of mixing human remains with straw and wood chips and placing them in soil to help grow flowers and trees.

The Washington-based firm Recompose has pioneered human composting, which has been hailed as more affordable and environmentally friendly than caskets or cremation — America’s most popular form of burial.

“The idea of returning to earth resonates with many different faiths around the world,” Katrina Spade, founder and CEO of Recompose, told The Washington Times. “And nature is really good at death.”

Some opposition to the new law came from the Catholic Church, which argued that the composting technique fails to follow church doctrine on the treatment of the dead.

But Washington state’s association of funeral directors supported the initiative, echoing sentiments expressed by the National Funeral Directors Association that  the method offers environmental benefits at lower costs.

(more…)

Share

BACK TO THE 60’S – RADICAL SOCIALISTS

Saturday, April 13th, 2019

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BACK TO THE 60’S
Radical Socialists are once again on the scene, pushing against conservative principles
 
By Ellen Sauerbrey  • Ellen Sauerbrey is a former Republican nominee for governor of Maryland and U.S. assistant secretary of State.   – – Wednesday, March 13, 2019

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Many Americans are shocked that socialism, which has been anathema to the vast majority throughout our history, has suddenly emerged as the guiding principle for most Democratic presidential candidates. How has this happened?

The seeds of todays’ socialist and conservative movements grew out of the 1960s — a time of turmoil, war protests, civil rights riots, assassinations and a clash of fundamental ideas about the role of government in organizing society.

Communism had been making great strides in Europe and the United States was in the crosshairs. A former FBI agent, W. Cleon Skouse, wrote an alarming book, “The Naked Communist,” outlining the Communist strategy to take over America. In 1963, Florida Congressman Albert Herlong Jr. inserted a list of 45 Communist goals from Clauson’s book into the Congressional Record. Today it reads like a checklist of the left.

The goals included: Capture one of the political parties, get control of the labor unions, big business, schools, and student newspapers. Infiltrate the press and the churches and eliminate prayer or religious expression in schools. Discredit the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the family.

One of the leading voices on the left in the Sixties was Bill Ayers, the most prominent member of the radical and violent Weather Underground, and a self-described Communist. Ayers, his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, and co-conspirator Kathryn Boutin were dedicated to the violent overthrow of the capitalist system.

Two other influential Sixties radicals, Columbia University sociology professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, promoted a nonviolent approach in a 1966 article in The Nation. Their idea was to collapse the financial system by recruiting so many poor for welfare that it would create a political crisis. They founded the National Welfare Rights Organization, packed the welfare rolls and by 1975 forced New York City into bankruptcy. With their success, it was clear that this strategy could be used to overwhelm other government systems as well.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – EXCLUSIVE VIDEO FOR CPAC 2019

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

 

Share

HOW THE LEFT ACCOMPLISHES RADICAL CHANGE

Monday, March 4th, 2019

 

To understand what is behind the Democrat’s lurch to the Far Left, you have to think like a Marxist !  Read on !!!  Thanks to Dee Sams for sharing  Nancy

THE FEDERALIST

How The Left Tricks People Into Thinking Socialism Is Plausible

If you want to effect radical change that politicians will vote for, don’t try to convince the politicians directly, but shift what is considered socially acceptable by legitimizing insane ideas.
By William F. Marshall     William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for more than 30 years. He is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)
William F. Marshall

By William F. Marshall

What on earth has happened to the Democratic Party? Even by liberal standards, the policies the left now advocates appear insane. To say they are an order of fries short of a Happy Meal is an insult to McDonald’s.

I’m used to childishness from the Democratic Party, but something is very wrong in the Land of Unicorns and Fairy Dust. Is all of this just the usual hyper-liberal reaction to a Republican presidency, or is there something more insidious and dangerous at work? The latter may be the case, in the form of something called the Overton Window Principle. Let’s recap the last several weeks in Lala-Land.

Consider the “Green New Deal” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports. Her resolution before Congress calls for America to entirely divest itself of fossil fuels within ten years. This is such a ludicrous proposal that anyone with a scintilla of common sense or over the age of 25 should burst out laughing when informed of it.

A Frequently Asked Questions page that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website before it was taken down actually said: “We set a goal to get to that net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast…” That is a real quote from an actual document posted to a bona fide congresswoman’s real-life website.

Yes, it’s uproariously stupid, funny, and deserving of ridicule by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, and all the other entertaining commentators on conservative talk radio. Ocasio-Cortez is an endless source of fun, and I hope there’s a microphone nearby every time she opens her mouth. May she be the one Democrat who has a long and voluble career in Washington.

But here’s the concerning part: as of a week ago, 67 adult members of Congress signed on to support Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Moreover, her ridiculous plan has been mirrored by a Senate resolution sponsored by a wizened, crusty old Democrat machine politician, Sen. Edward Markey, who has decades of legislative experience and surely knows how absurd the Green New Deal’s provisions are.

The Method Behind the Madness

So what gives? Has Markey lost his marbles? Not only that, have all the other Democrat luminaries running for president who have endorsed the GND—like Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar—lost their minds as well?

It’s within the realm of possibility that Donald Trump has finally succeeded in snapping the tenuous hold these leftist politicians have on reality. But it might be explained by the Overton Window theory.

(more…)

Share

MULTICULTURALISM / CULTURAL MARXISM

Thursday, February 28th, 2019

 

This is an excellent article and the amazing thing is that it was written in 2007; twelve years ago  and we are seeing first hand how successful Cultural Marxism / Multiculturalism  has been in polarizing this nation and infecting our youth and our institutions  with their ideology.
  The information in this  article  is so crystal clear to  conservatives but yet the liberals and Democrats  can’t seem to recognize how  this ideology has taken over their way of thinking.   We conservatives need to stand strong against this  Marxist  onslaught.  Cultural Marxism/Multiculturalism was designed to weaken Christian countries by undermining our traditional cultures that have kept us strong and prosperous.    Please share with your email lists as we need to understand how Multiculturalism originated and how dangerous it is.  “Know thy enemy” !       Nancy 

AMERICAN THINKER
CULTURAL MARXISM
February 15, 2007

Cultural Marxism

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans.  The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded.  The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well.  “The Sixties are dead,” wrote columnist George Will (“Slamming the Doors,” Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)
Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement.  However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups.  Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay’ rights groups.  All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.
Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America.  They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity.  All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.
Birth of Multiculturalism
Share

THE GREEN NEW DEAL’S IMPOSSIBLE ELECTRIC GRID

Monday, February 25th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Green New Deal’s Impossible Electric Grid

Renewable energy can’t consistently balance power supply with demand.

Feb. 21, 2019

The San Gorgonio Pass wind farm in Palm Springs, Calif., Jan. 6.
The San Gorgonio Pass wind farm in Palm Springs, Calif., Jan. 6. PHOTO: RUARIDH STEWART/ZUMA PRESS

The Democrats’ Green New Deal calls for a fully renewable electric power grid. Regardless of the economic or political challenges of bringing this about, it is likely technologically impossible.

An electric power grid involves second-by-second balancing between generated supply and consumer demand. In the case of a sudden imbalance—such as from the loss of a generator’s output—all the remaining generators on the grid instantaneously pool together. Each one pitches in a small part of the required power to make up for the lost generator fast enough to keep supply and demand balanced.

This doesn’t work for wind and solar because you can’t spontaneously increase wind or sunshine. Hydro power is limited and unevenly distributed around the country. And for safety reasons, nuclear power—even if the Green New Dealers accepted it—can’t be cranked up to neutralize imbalances. Nor can consumer demand be suddenly reduced enough.

Fossil-fuel turbines, by contrast, very naturally compensate for sudden supply outages. The inertia of the spinning mass of rotors provides the extra energy needed to compensate for the loss for the first few seconds. (Wind-rotor inertia is too short-lived.) Meanwhile the generators’ on-line reserve capacity kicks in, giving a rapid boost in power output to prevent the turbines from slowing down. That substitute power, called “governor response,” lasts as long as 15 minutes. During that time a single replacement generator ramps up to compensate entirely for the loss. All the turbines on the grid are thereby restored to their original speed, and the governor response is rearmed for the next disturbance.

An all-renewables grid would require prohibitively expensive battery storage to compensate for sudden power losses. Even with batteries, the lost power would have to be fed through “inverters”—a technology that converts variable-wind-speed alternating current, solar-power direct current, and battery-power direct-current into alternating current—to allow for synthetic inertia and governor response in the case of a disruption.

Opinion: The Green New Deal Gets a Senate Vote

Opinion: The Green New Deal Gets a Senate Vote
Share

$1,973 LED’s and the Green New Deal

Monday, February 18th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

$1,973 LEDs and the Green New Deal

How many union workers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

The Editorial Board   January 16, 2019

The Green New Deal that Democrats unveiled last week has a grand ambition to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, retrofit every building in America, and guarantee high-paying jobs in the bargain. If you want to see how that works in the real world, consider the public housing projects near Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York office.

The New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) has a more modest goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2027. As part of its plan, Nycha is switching to LED lighting, which lasts longer than incandescent bulbs and consumes less energy. Sounds smart, until you see how many union workers it takes to screw in a light bulb.

One recent project focused on 23 housing developments, and changing the light bulbs and fixtures there cost $33.2 million. Supplies account for a fraction of that cost. Under Nycha’s Project Labor Agreement, electricians make $81 in base pay and $54 in fringe per hour, and overtime is usually time and a half. Add administrative and contracting expenses. All in, Nycha paid an average of $1,973 per apartment to install LEDs.

For Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, sky-high labor costs are part of the plan. Her Green New Deal resolution would create “high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages” and reinforce “the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain.” It also mandates upgrades for “all existing buildings in the United States” to “achieve maximal energy efficiency.” In this worker’s paradise, there’s a $1,973 LED in every socket.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal also states that a Green New Deal “must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership” with both labor and low-income families. But if she visited the Nycha homes, she may find those mandates are at odds.

“I can buy LED myself,” said Barbara Jones, 69, who has lived in Cypress Hills since her 20s and is dismayed by the disrepair. Others we interviewed said they’d rather see money go first to getting rid of vermin, mold and lead paint, tidying filthy premises, or improving safety.

Nycha also updated the heat and hot water systems in addition to upgrading the lights at these 23 developments, and the total cost for the energy-efficiency overhaul was $68.7 million. A Consolidated Edison grant covered $8.25 million, but Nycha took out a loan to cover the rest. The housing authority has three similar projects in construction at other developments, and the total cost for all four is $271.8 million.

LED lights and other energy-efficiency upgrades may drive Nycha’s utility bills down, but those savings aren’t directly passed on to taxpayers for as long as 20 years. Under the federal Energy Performance Contracting Program, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development continues to reimburse Nycha for utilities at pre-LED levels. Public housing authorities must spend a minimum of 75% of their savings on servicing the loan and other project costs, but they have more discretion over the rest.

In the private economy, $1,973 could go a long way toward improving a dilapidated apartment. Only in the world of green government spending is replacing light bulbs for two grand a unit a cost-saving measure.

Share

VOTE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

 

www.wsj.com/articles/vote-on-the-green-new-deal-11549931107

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Vote on the Green New Deal

Every Member of Congress should step up and be counted.

Editorial Board     February 12, 2019

Democrats rolled out their Green New Deal last week, and by all means let’s have a national debate and then a vote in Congress—as soon as possible. Here in one package is what the political left really means when it says Americans need to do something urgently about climate change, so let’s see who has the courage of those convictions.

Thanks to the resolution introduced last week by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, there’s already official language. While it’s nonbinding, the 14 pages give a clear sense of direction and magnitude in calling for a “10-year national mobilization” to exorcise carbon from the U.S. economy.

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan looks modest by comparison. The 10-year Green New Deal calls for generating 100% of power from renewables and removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and transportation—to the extent these goals are “technologically feasible.” Hint: They’re not.

The plan also calls for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.” That’s all existing buildings, comrade.

Millions of jobs would have to be destroyed en route to this brave new green world, but not to worry. The resolution says the government would also guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Good that they’re starting small.

Sorry to mention unhappy reality, but renewable sources currently make up only 17% of U.S. electric-power generation despite enormous federal and state subsidies. Wind and solar energy have become more competitive over the last decade as costs have plunged. But without subsidies, solar costs remain about 20% higher than natural gas while offshore wind is two-thirds more expensive. The bigger problem is solar and wind don’t provide reliable power, so backup plants that burn fossil fuels are required to run on stand-by.

(more…)

Share

AUSTRALIA – A CAUTIONARY TALE OF A GREEN NEW DEAL

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

 

The first article tells the the revealing story of Australia’s fatal  experiment with trying to maximize energy efficiency.  The second article encourages a vote on the new green energy deal to put Democrats on record for supporting this fantasy land proposal.  It is truly fascinating to watch this spectacle unfold of a party self-destructing right in front of our  very eyes.   Nancy      
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Green New Deal: A Cautionary Tale

Australia’s costly and fatal 2009 effort to upgrade houses for energy efficiency.

By Tim Blair    Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
February 12, 2019

Sydney

The Green New Deal—introduced in Congress last week and immediately endorsed by several Democratic presidential candidates—calls among other things for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States . . . to achieve maximal energy efficiency.” We’ve tried it in Australia—on a much smaller scale—and it didn’t go well.

On Feb. 3, 2009, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced the Energy Efficient Homes Package. “To support jobs and set Australia up for a low carbon future the Rudd Government will install free ceiling insulation in around 2.7 million Australian homes,” declared a press release from Mr. Swan’s office.

“For a time-limited period of two and a half years, from 1 July 2009, owner-occupiers without ceiling insulation will be eligible for free product and installation (capped at $1,600) simply by making a phone call.” At the time, A$1,600 was worth about US$1,280.

In many cases those calls weren’t necessary. At the Daily Telegraph, where I work, we discovered something was amiss when our chief of staff ordered a pizza. To her surprise, the delivery man also offered an insulation quote.

There were only 250 registered insulation businesses in Australia when the package was announced. That number quickly blew out to 7,000 because the government was handing out free money to installers. Pizza drivers could pick up more in one insulation job than from a month’s worth of tips. They received their rebates directly from the government rather than from homeowners, who therefore had little incentive to check if the work had been done well or even at all. Some ceilings ended up with a mere handful of insulation batts thrown around. Others featured only shredded paper. Almost every insulation job went right up to the $1,600 cap, regardless of size or ceiling area.

The insulation army worked at frantic speed, eager to cash in while they could. When the difference between five jobs done reasonably well and eight jobs done in careless haste is $4,800, a short amount of time represents a lot of money.

Then the deaths began. Four young men were killed while installing insulation under the government’s program—three by electrocution and one from hyperthermia during the Australian summer. Dozens more workers, most of them inexperienced, suffered injuries and heat stroke.

Nearly 100 houses caught fire. Environment Minister Peter Garrett, whose hits as Midnight Oil’s lead singer included 1987’s “Beds are Burning,” subsequently announced the planned deregistration or suspension of 5,000 installers.

Those suspensions were never required. In February 2010, a year after the Energy Efficient Homes Package was announced, it was abandoned.

Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

Share

UNLEASHING THE ENERGY SECTOR

Friday, January 25th, 2019

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Unleashing the energy sector

By Monica Crowley   November 28, 2018

Given the historically significant pressures on the Republican Party in the midterm elections, there were two major things that saved the GOP’s bacon: The thunderous star power of President Trumpand the booming economy he has delivered.

The remarkable economic expansion is a direct result of the Trump tax cuts, widespread deregulation and renegotiation of global trade relationships. But the largely untold part of the economic success story is the Trump administration’s unleashing of the energy sector.

For eight long years, President Obama used the Environmental Protection Agency as a sledgehammer to enforce the leftist energy wish list: Bankrupt the coal industry, subsidize green energy boondoggles such as Solyndra despite massive taxpayer losses, impose cap and trade, halt offshore drilling and exploration projects and kill off oil pipelines such as the Keystone XL. American consumers, domestic energy producers and tens of thousands of jobs be damned.

Once in office, Mr. Trump set about reversing these destructive energy policies with the stated goal of achieving true energy independence.

Mr. Trump understood that energy policy may not be as sexy as tax relief or a new NAFTA agreement, but it is a bipartisan issue vital to the nation’s economic future. Unfortunately, in today’s highly-politicized climate, economic growth can often be caught in the crossfire of ideological activism.

In one of the more egregious recent examples, the Keystone XL pipeline was blocked by a San Francisco judge on Nov. 8, frustrating the president’s agenda. “It was a political decision made by a judge. I think it’s a disgrace,” Mr. Trump told reporters, adding, “Forty-eight thousand jobs. I approved it. It’s ready to start.”

This latest judicial ruling presents significant challenges to Mr. Trump’s energy policy and stalls the prospect of further harvesting abundant U.S. natural resources, hampering national security in the process. Other projects, such as the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), which was placed on Mr. Trump’s National Infrastructure Priorities List, may yet face similar challenges.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories