“We told ya so” just doesn’t quite cut it anymore. As the American sheeple slept, selfishly refusing to take a stand against tyranny, the Obama administration has been plotting what can only be called a total government takeover of America.
On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS.”
by sherry mann
BP should read the EPA posters in many of its “service stations.”
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response launched the “You Dump It, You Drink It” campaign to promote the proper management of used motor oil by “do-it-yourself’ consumers who change their own oil. According to the EPA, Americans who change their own oil throw away 120 million gallons of recoverable motor oil by dumping it on the ground, pouring it down storm drains, or putting it in trash cans. The penalty for anyone caught dumping used oil in Kentucky for example, may be fined up to $1,000.
The following is the text of these EPA posters aimed at service stations. Those suggestions in bold should be faxed to BP headquarters stat…especially number three.
Managing Oil Spills
“You dump it, you drink it.”
1) Take steps to prevent spills. Keep machinery, equipment, containers and tanks in good working condition and be careful when transferring used motor oil.
2) Have clean-up materials, such as rags, booms or sand, readily available.
3) Stop the oil from flowing at the source. If a leak from a container or tank cannot be stopped, put the oil in another holding container.
4) Contain spilled oil. Spread sand or other clean-up materials over the oil and surrounding area.
5) Clean up and recycle used motor oil. Remove the used oil from any clean-up materials, don’t mix it with anything and send it to a re-refiner when possible.
6) Remove, repair or replace the defective tank or container immediately.
According to the EPA, “used oil from a single oil change can ruin a million gallons of fresh water – a year’s supply for 50 people.” So, if someone dumped the oil from a single oil change (which is an average of one gallon of oil), he could ruin the fresh water supply of 50 people and could face a $1000 fine–for a gallon.
Interesting.
by sherry mann
Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour is still in political containment mode with such quotes as, “We’re going to fight it every step of the way, and we do not take for granted that this is going to be catastrophic” while millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico, and the full cataclysmic nature of the recent BP drilling rig explosion will be taken for granted as a crude reality.
Although the AP (American Propaganda) prefers to discuss the economic ramifications, the greater aftermath will be felt in the natural world. Innumerable living creatures will die or be irreparably harmed from the suffocating, poisoning and starvation effects of the petrol-chemicals now in and around the Gulf, but it is the landfall damage caused by the fast approaching hurricane season which may outweigh even that devil’s brew.
Just three weeks from now, hurricane season will officially begin, and while I am by no means a weather expert, isn’t it common knowledge that when a hurricane passes through an area, it sucks up the water from one place and dumps it out everywhere else?
Of course, there are a number of unknown factors at play and even the experts don’t know how oil, seawater and hurricanes will interact.
by (Name Withheld)
To All,
I just returned from Haiti with Hebler. We flew in at 3 AM Sunday to the scene of such incredible destruction on one side, and enormous ineptitude and criminal neglect on the other.
Port of Prince is in ruins. The rest of the country is fairly intact. Ours was a rescue team and we carried special equipment that locates people buried under the rubble. There are easily 200,000 dead, the city smells like a charnal house. The bloody UN was there for 5 years doing apparently nothing but wasting US Taxpayers money. The ones I ran into were either incompetent or outright anti-American. Most are French or French speakers, worthless every d*mn one of them. While 18oo rescuers were ready willing and able to leave the airport and go do our jobs, the UN and USAID (another organization full of little Obamites and communists that openly speak against America) These two organizations exemplared their parochialism by:
by Dr Helen Caldicott
hat tip: www.globalresearch.ca
October 14, 2009
Jennifer Nordstrom, co-ordinator of the Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free project has noted “Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight.”
A recent study sponsored by the German government (the KiKK study – Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al. Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726,) examined children who lived near 16 of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants. The results revealed a strongly increased risk of all childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia, the closer the proximity of the children’s residence to the reactor. In particular, the study found that children less than the age five years, living within a 5km radius of the power plant exhaust stacks were more than twice as likely to develop leukaemia compared with those children residing more that 5km away. The KiKK team studied other carcinogenic factors which may be responsible for the cancer clusters but none were found.
Another large study (Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363) – a meta-analysis of the incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in children living near 138 nuclear facilities in Britain, Canada, Spain, Germany, the US and Japan also demonstrated a statistically significant rate of leukemia in children less than nine years of age.
A further large review (Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190) of children and young adults living near 198 nuclear sites in 10 countries was found to be compatible with the study described above.
It is important to note that the sensitivity to the damaging effects of radiation in early embryonic and fetal life is much higher than in adults, and young children are also particularly vulnerable.
The radioactive elements “routinely” emitted from nuclear power plant stacks into the air can be inhaled, or ingested when they concentrate in the food chain – in vegetables and fruit, -and then further concentrated in various internal organs in humans. Similarly, the millions of gallons of cooling water flushed daily from a nuclear reactor into the always adjoining water source (lake, river or sea) contaminate it with radioactive materials which bio-concentrate hundreds of times in the aquatic food chain. The fish of course, who may ingest these materials in the surrounding water, routinely travel for tens and even hundreds of miles before they are caught by commercial or recreational purposes. And when caught their physical appearance does not provide any clues about such ingestion.
Unfortunately, radioactive elements are invisible to the human senses – taste, smell, and sight. Also unfortunately, the incubation time for radiation-induced cancer is five to 60 years, a long, silent latent period. No cancer ever denotes its specific cause.
(*and maybe even that)
Jack Hoogendyk
Congressional Water Grab
Michigan, through its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is one of only two states in the Union that regulates wetlands with a state agency rather than through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This has been a problem because the state guidelines are much more strict than the federal guidelines. Additionally, the DEQ has proven to be arbitrary and capricious in its decision making and has often caused long delays in approving permits.
While the concerns about over-regulation by a state agency are valid, they may be rendered “moot” by recent efforts in Congress. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill, S787, which was sponsored by 23 other members (all Democrats including Levin and Stabenow.) Senate Bill S787 is entitled, “To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States.” Notice they start the description with the words “pollution control.” That makes it sound caring and good, doesn’t it?
Hat tip: Brasscheck
Who owns the water on your land? You do, unless you’ve sold the rights.
The federal government would like to cut out the middleman - you – and take control over it…in the interests of ‘protecting’ it, of course.
The sponsors call it the “Clean Water Restoration Act.” It’s kind of like calling the shredding of the Bill of Rights under Bush II, the PATRIOT Act.
If the federal government takes control over all the non-navigable water in the US and the land adjoining it, then it will have the right to seize it and give it away.
Give it away to who?
Well, that multi-trillion dollar deficit has to be paid off somehow.
Look to the Feds to to try to take control of more and more private property in the months and years to come.
Just say no.
Environmentalists and others like to gather it in containers for use in drier times. But state law says it belongs to those who bought the rights to waterways.
Hat tip: LA TIMES
By Nicholas Riccardi
March 18, 2009
Reporting from Denver — Every time it rains here, Kris Holstrom knowingly breaks the law.
Holstrom’s violation is the fancifully painted 55-gallon buckets underneath the gutters of her farmhouse on a mesa 15 miles from the resort town of Telluride. The barrels catch rain and snowmelt, which Holstrom uses to irrigate the small vegetable garden she and her husband maintain.
But according to the state of Colorado, the rain that falls on Holstrom’s property is not hers to keep. It should be allowed to fall to the ground and flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, the law states, to become the property of farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies that have bought the rights to those waterways.
What Holstrom does is called rainwater harvesting. It’s a practice that dates back to the dawn of civilization, and is increasingly in vogue among environmentalists and others who pursue sustainable lifestyles. They collect varying amounts of water, depending on the rainfall and the vessels they collect it in. The only risk involved is losing it to evaporation. Or running afoul of Western states’ water laws.
Those laws, some of them more than a century old, have governed the development of the region since pioneer days.
“If you try to collect rainwater, well, that water really belongs to someone else,” said Doug Kemper, executive director of the Colorado Water Congress. “We get into a very detailed accounting on every little drop.”
Frank Jaeger of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, on the arid foothills south of Denver, sees water harvesting as an insidious attempt to take water from entities that have paid dearly for the resource.
“Every drop of water that comes down keeps the ground wet and helps the flow of the river,” Jaeger said. He scoffs at arguments that harvesters like Holstrom only take a few drops from rivers. “Everything always starts with one little bite at a time.”
© 2013
The Liberty Voice. All Rights Reserved.
Log in
-
Designed by Gabfire Themes