The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Northwest Clean Energy - A Rational View

10/28/2012

2 Comments

 
WE saw this a couple of days ago and felt it was worth sharing as widely as possible.   It's a frank, honest view of local clean energy that's loaded with common sense.

Clean energy is a good thing.  Who in their right mind would want dirty energy?   Whatever your political stripe it's one thing everybody agrees about.

This is a good read, better yet the facts check out.   Yes, critics may say it comes from a politician, but Ericksen's kinda unique.  He received a bachelor’s degree in government from Cornell University, and a master’s degree in political science and environmental policy from Western Washington University.  He's no slouch where it comes to finding solutions.

Picture
A Fresh, Forward-thinking and Affordable Energy Strategy, October 26, 2012
by WA Senator Doug Ericksen

Hello Whatcom County,

Electricity is absolutely vital to our daily lives. If a tragedy struck and one of our major roadways was shut down, services could be provided while the road was rebuilt. On the other hand, if the electrical grid were to fail, our society could collapse within a matter of days.

I use this example not to provoke fear, but rather to underscore the importance of our state approaching energy policy in a rational, forward-thinking manner. With this week's Blueprint for a Better Washington, we'll look at what we're doing right on energy, and where fresh ideas could keep electricity costs low and our energy grid reliable, while encouraging innovations to move us towards energy independence.

The facts:
  • 81 percent of the power produced in Washington comes from clean sources
    • 73 percent comes from hydroelectric
    • 8 percent comes from nuclear
  • Washington has the 3rd lowest retail electricity cost in the U.S.
  • Washington has the 9th smallest carbon footprint in the U.S.


The problem:
  • Washington's Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate that a percentage of energy come from "renewable sources", but fails to recognize hydroelectric power as renewable
    • Examples of eligible renewable sources allowed by the measure include wind, solar and biomass
  • Utilities are mandated to increase the percentage of power they provide to customers derived from renewable sources to 15 percent by 2020
    • The current renewable requirement is three percent
  • As utilities increase the amount of power generated from less efficient sources, the cost of power increases and reliability decreases


The solution - my guiding principles for energy policy in Washington state:
  • Focus first on cost to the consumer - technology should lead to lower prices, not higher costs for families
  • Keep a level playing field that encourages innovation - provide tax incentives for all energy producers to become more efficient instead of allowing government to pick winners and losers
  • Invest in research and development - provide resources for our universities to develop new technologies
As Washingtonians, we are fortunate to live in a state where a remarkable 81 percent of the power generated in our state comes from clean sources. Not only is our power clean, it's also relatively inexpensive. Let's take a look at how we can continue forward-thinking energy policies without compromising existing resources and without increasing your utility bills.

Clean, reliable and inexpensive - what's powering Washington

Currently, our state enjoys reliable and affordable power from a mix of sources that is the envy of many states in the nation. As you can see in the below chart, the vast majority of the power generated in Washington comes from clean sources like hydro and nuclear that emit no greenhouse gases. 



Picture
Keep in mind that many states still rely primarily on coal for their energy needs. Wyoming gets over 90 percent of their power from coal and in Indiana, coal accounts for over 95 percent.

Hydroelectric power is clean, affordable and reliable. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, but our rivers run constantly. Nuclear energy is similarly reliable and affordable.

Renewable Portfolio Standards - social engineering for energy

With good intentions, Washington adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards to encourage investments in alternative energy sources. Of course, the devil is always in the details and as the RPS was further studied, two things became obvious. First, the law deliberately excluded hydroelectric power, despite the fact that hydro provides reliable, clean and cost-efficient energy. Second, moving to less-efficient energy sources such as solar and wind power would raise utility bills - perhaps substantially.

Every year since the RPS was adopted, legislation has been brought forward to modify the standards. Those efforts have all been met with stiff resistance from supporters of the law who insist that moving to new energy sources is worth the higher utility bills and less reliable power. Here are the phased-in targets utilities must hit for usage of energy from eligible renewable sources such as solar and wind:


Picture
Make no mistake - increasing the use of alternative energy will raise utility bills. The next legislative session will be crucial, as utilities will have to make substantial investments to meet future benchmarks. If changes aren't made next year, they probably won't be made.

The irony is that states like California are purchasing our hydropower to meet their renewable energy standards. If the RPS goes unchanged, we'll be selling more clean hydroelectric energy to other states, only to replace it with alternative sources that are more expensive, less reliable and no more environmentally friendly. It just doesn't make any sense.

Encouraging innovation everywhere - leveling the playing field

Government shouldn't be in the businesses of picking winners and losers in any industry, much less one as crucial as energy. On the federal level, we've seen the pitfalls of selective government investment with the now-infamous example of Solyndra, the alternative energy company that received $535 million in taxpayer subsidies and promptly declared bankruptcy.

To be clear, tax incentives are available for traditional energy suppliers, such as oil companies, to expand and update existing facilities. The difference is that oil companies pay billions in taxes each year. By comparison, alternative energy producers working in wind or solar power receive so much in subsidies that their operations pay little or no taxes.

We know that incentives are a more effective tool than mandates for changing behavior. State government should be providing tax incentives for all energy producers to become more efficient and move us closer to being energy independent.

A real-world problem - and a positive solution

This isn't just an abstract issue; it's playing out across the state right now. As an example, Benton Public Utility District in Eastern Washington has plenty of power to meet its needs for years to come, but due to our Renewable Portfolio Standards, it will need to spend between $1.5 million and $3 million each year for energy produced elsewhere that qualifies as renewable under the law. Instead of the utility buying hydropower that costs around $28 per megawatt-hour, it will have to buy wind power that runs between $75 and $125. Of course, the PUD doesn't absorb the difference, it has to pass it onto customers in the form of higher rates.

Fortunately, awareness of the issue is being raised and people are coming together in an attempt to change the law and allow some flexibility by recognizing hydroelectric power as a renewable resource. Below is a link to a Tri-City Herald article that details a September press conference held by POWER, a regional group trying to build consensus for common-sense energy policy.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/09/28/2116893/mid-columbia-group-forms-to-fight.html#storylink=misearch 

The fact is that we need a long-term vision for energy independence based on today's realities. Currently, many alternative energy sources cost more, are less reliable and require significant government subsidies. In the next session, I'll be sponsoring legislation that will:

  • Modify Washington's Renewable Portfolio Standards to recognize hydropower as renewable
  • Keep utility bills at our relatively-low rates
  • Maintain our reliable energy production
  • Invest in nuclear energy and energy grid improvements
  • Fund research and development of emerging technology through our universities
We can make investments in emerging energy sources without compromising what we have. You can count on me to fight for keeping our utility bills affordable and our clean hydroelectric power here in Washington.

Stay in touch

Thanks for your continued interest in improving state government. I appreciate all the feedback I've received and I always welcome your thoughts, questions or concerns. Feel free to contact me by email at doug@senatorericksen.com or by phone at my Olympia office at (360) 786-7682. It's an honor to be working for the people of Whatcom County and representing you in the state Senate.

Take care and God bless, 

 
Doug Ericksen
Washington State Senator, 42nd District
Olympia office: (360) 786-7682 
E-mail: doug@senatorericksen.com
Web site:  www.SenatorEricksen.com


2 Comments

Food Lunacy - End of the World, is it?

10/25/2012

2 Comments

 
WE can't help but wonder, what gives with all the food crisis talk lately, scaring the devil out of people?  Well it all goes hand-in-hand with peak oil and global warming/climate change of course.
Picture
Religious fanatic, or environmental extremist? What's the difference?

Right here, today ...  "Climate Change & the Future of Food"?    Adaptation Strategies? Like what?   Check out the invite:
Picture
Notes and Links:  MRC is the Marine Resources Committee of Whatcom County;  here's the link to Whatcom Conservation District.  WE understand that Whatcom County Public Works will be there, as well.   Planners, planners, and more planners.   'Wonder if council is aware of what these agencies are doing.   Readers need to know that WWIN, Whatcom Watersheds Information Network, is a private organization with a persona that makes it look like it's an official "agency" but like so many others it's not (they seek to advise anyone who will listen, sharing their view of what's best for everyone else).

There's way to much "volunteer visioning" going on these days, do you think?   There's been one "workshop" or "community meeting" after another, most entirely one-sided, pre-programmed consensus affairs principally run by advocates and proponents.   WE dredged and it seems that this event's organizers Kilanowski and Jimerson are doubling up, tied to both WSU "Carbon Masters" and WWIN (like WSU's Blake).   Special interests galore, most funded by tax dollars and grants.  Think there would be any spin at an event like this?   Nothing but.

Commentary:

All Hail the Nanny State! You know, all this wouldn't bother me so much if it was left to the earnest but crazy guy on the street corner, holding the "repent!" sign.  It's his job, and his first amendment right to convince me to repent, and it's my job and my right to decide if I need what he's selling, or not.  The non-establishment clause of the first amendment prevents him from co-opting government into forcing me to join his religion -- at least the Judeo-Christian ones, it seems. Increasingly today though, we have social justice and environmental prophets who are seemingly immune from the non-establishment clause,  digging their tendrils ever deeper into my personal affairs. They have all the trappings of a faith-based religion, except the name. 

They wrap themselves in the garb of science, but all they have done is trade traditional vestments for a lab coat, with none of the objective scientific rigor. Put your money where your mouth is! Do what it takes to give me reliably reproducible science. Maybe then I'll join your cause -- not your religion. But attempts to coerce me by the force of government is only going to make me, and more people than you may realize, resentful and reactionary. Just gimme some truth!    Signed, Publius
2 Comments

Satire - A Little Gore to Prove a Point, No Pressure

10/25/2012

1 Comment

 
Science realists, conservation challengers, climate change skeptics, anyone who dares to suggest that greenhouse gas emission goals are a load of hot air ...  not getting with the program?  No pressure.     (HAPPY HALLOWEEN)

(Not for the faint-hearted, or under-18 crowd)
FYI - this, believe it or not, was produced and released some time ago in Europe as an effort named 10:10 Global.org.   It was intended to bring humor to the eco-activist cause, but it created such an uproar it's been pulled (blocked) repeatedly.   It disappears [KABOOM!] from YouTube due to (no pressure!) "political correctness."   But it keeps popping back up.
1 Comment

Are YOU the Excavator?   We all are...

10/24/2012

5 Comments

 
This is amusing, or ought to be.  There are those in the illiberal community who seem obsessed to know who and what makes the Excavator rock n roll.

Truth be told (that's always been the theme) a lot - a lot - of eyes are on local government, what constitutes just law, fair and open process, and checking science and facts. 

The rational public is the Excavator, dudes.   There are tens of us, hundreds ... along with tens of thousands across the nation.  The "silent majority" is silent no more, and it's shining a light on a lot that slithers.  WE are reading, we are researching, we are watching.  And we're saying "No."

Americans have the rare and undeniable constitutional right to speak freely.  And WE say, as we should:   Back out of managing private lives.  Get your meat hooks off our homes and hearths.  Our land and property are not public playthings - this is not a game of "Monopoly."  And stop the incessant indoctrination of our children with political and ecological religiosity.
Readers --  you're all "the Excavator."  Add your comments, below.
5 Comments

Great News - Supreme Court To Weigh Wetlands Mitigation Extortion Case

10/20/2012

1 Comment

 
It's good to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about land use mitigation fees.   What's really important, it's a case that involves mitigation demands related to a "wetland" that look like clear-cut extortion.

For more than ten years, Whatcom County has established a growing number of regulations, policies, and plans based on environmental theory.  And our Planning & Development Services department operates on the assumption that all land within the county's boundaries - both public and  private - is a "natural resource" that the county has not only the right but a duty to manage.  An increasing number of permit approvals require "mitigation."   In most cases, little tangible scientific proof of harm done is proven by the government itself.   Planners glibly write about creating regulatory "tool boxes" to expand the public use of private property.  How justifiable is their stance?

Citizens' private land (or the use of their land) should not be taken wrongfully, without site-specific proof that damage has occurred or will occur.   On-site and off-site mitigation, if justified, should be soundly based on facts and be proportionate to impact.

The general demand for agricultural, watershed and wetlands "protection" and restoration, and for numerous other kinds of public use (such as transportation and recreation),  is expanding here in leaps and bounds without the specificity it should. Whatcom County legal's opinion always leans in favor of expanding county powers - but is that constitutionally correct?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Koontz family as it may, could this case make a difference?   Yes, absolutely.   Watch the video below.

Background, from Pacific Legal Foundation:

PLF's new case at the Supreme Court asks: Can government extort money from property owners?

The Koontz family merely wanted to develop the family's land in legal and responsible ways," said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II, who wrote the successful petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "But the St. Johns River Water Management District saw a chance to make all kinds of unrelated, outrageous demands."

In particular, the agency demanded that the Koontz family pay for up to $150,000 in improvements on 50 acres of the district's own land --- miles away from the Koontz property!

"This permit condition bore no connection to the project that Mr. Koontz proposed," said Beard.

"This is a classic case of an unconstitutional shakedown. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government can't use the permitting process to extract conditions that aren't related to the impact of the proposed development."

As PLF supporters know, that ruling came in PLF's 1987 victory, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. In this new case, we're asking the Court to rein in agencies that ignore Nollan --- and to make it clear that Nollan forbids extortion of money, not just real property.

1 Comment

CAPR Files Legal Action in San Juan Superior Court

10/15/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
WE received the following press release from CAPR San Juan:

Today, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) filed a legal action in San Juan Superior Court against the County of San Juan alleging both violations of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act and violations the Washington's Growth Management Act. All but one of the causes of action allege procedural and substantive errors in the County Council's deliberations during the County's revision of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan.

Simply, the goal of CAPR's legal action against the County of San Juan is to require the
County Council to follow the laws pertaining to openness and transparency of
government. This is essential in a functioning democracy.

The legal action alleges that members of the County Council have repeatedly met with
staff behind closed doors and have not allowed the public to observe their deliberations.
This is illegal. CAPR alleges that for more than a year, Council Members met as a
CAO/SMP Implementation Committee and discussed important policy issues without
allowing the public to observe the meetings as required by law. Similar behavior has also
been evident in other county committees working on issues such as the county budget.
CAPR has asked the Circuit Court to declare that these private meetings have been and
are illegal, and to nullify any action that was taken therein.

In addition, CAPR alleges that the Council has failed to follow substantive laws, which
provide how a county is to go about creating or revising a critical areas ordinance or
shoreline master plan. CAPR alleges that the Council has failed to follow the Washington
State Legislature's direction on what is to constitute "best available science".

While CAPR does not favor resorting to legal action, CAPR looks forward to the speedy
and just resolution of this matter.


You can download a copy of the original press release from here.  The detailed complaint is here.

0 Comments

Marahooey, Maybe? Initiative 502 to "Legalize" Marijuana

10/14/2012

4 Comments

 
With ballots hitting the mailbox October 19, WE figured it was high time to dredge Initiative 502 (I-502) “on marijuana reform.”  Liberty-minded folks committed to preserving individual rights ask, “Who owns our bodies anyway?  Us, or the state?" and many wonder, "Maybe it’s time for legalization - we’re adults."   But even pro pot forces have their knickers in a knot over this holdover from last year.
Picture
Wikipedia offers a pretty solid background article, and here’s the official verbiage (tons to read).   You should know what the fine print actually says before voting.  Also know that there’s one heck of a dogfight inside the pro-marijuana community.  According to this recent article in the Seattle P.I., the law enforcement community has been split on it.

The Wikipedia piece does such a good job of presenting a section-by-section rundown on the initiative with a good comparison of pros and cons we won’t restate them.

We'll point out a few things to consider that aren’t apparent in the ballot title:

·         This would defy federal law.  How that shakes out is uncertain, but it raises questions about states' snubbing Congress.  People with a liking for federal laws and regulations should consider the implications of ignoring them piecemeal.  Do state-versus-federal law conflicts lead to bad precedent?  It’s worth pondering.  States’ rights challenges don't always end well.

·         It may not matter to you, but the plan places marijuana and related “controlled substances” under the management of the Liquor Control Board – bureaucrats.    Most of the initiative talks about production, manufacture and sales without addressing home herb gardens (the number of plants people can have is limited).   There's talk about THC concentration (how does a person determine that?), what a person can carry, etc.  and parts of this could create an enforcement nightmare.  There may be tension between the new liquor control board business and what's already on the books about medical marijuana.

·         This would present entirely new regulatory and law enforcement challenges.  Unsafe behavior "under the influence," public inebriation, and DUI won't be judged or tolerated much differently than they are now.   Know that levels of THC in your system can be tested, just as for alcohol.

·         WE honestly don’t know how businesses would have to adapt their drug testing and employment policies and standards if marijuana is "decriminalized" on the state level, but people working for federal agencies and maybe even those doing work funded by federal grants would probably have to abide by federal workplace laws and regs to avoid jeopardy.

Picture
Picture
Picture
·         This state has the rabid munchies for cash, and the proposed tax on grass would be huge.  Did you know this would impose a 25% tax on every stage of handling:  production to wholesale, wholesaling to retail, and the final retail sale?  Those taxes would add  up a mighty heavy hit.   Once rolling, this sin-tax could get bodaciously high (pardon the endless stream of puns).  If "legal" grass becomes outrageously expensive thanks to taxes on handling by middlemen plus the final sales tax, street grass could be a lot cheaper.  Thus "legalization" may do little to meet the official goal to "take marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations."   Don’t know, can’t say – but there’s little reason to believe any part of this initiative will empty jails overnight, if at all.

·         It’s always seemed hypocritical that many who vehemently oppose smoking tobacco and obsess about organic food and fitness go totally brain-dead where it comes to public health consequences and the physical effects of smoking weed.   Whether or not you believe grass is harmful, the state will continue to officially categorize marijuana use as a problem.  Millions will be spent on programs to discourage abuse at the same time that it's skimming taxes on sales and handling.   The tax revenue (at least at this point) is mostly slated for health and drug-treatment, but WE also suspect that - like always - those funds will be raided for other things.

At a minimum, readers should take time to understand what this initiative actually says before voting.   The "decriminalization" of pot has been proposed before, and not all opponents have been squares.  The situation is not a dead ringer for prohibition.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is legalization in the true sense, it's not.   Have ads been honest?   Here in Whatcom County we haven't seen too many.   However positive the spin, no one should expect this to be a joyride with Cheech & Chong.    It will take few to the happy place they'd really like.

Go - Google, Wiki, and learn what you can about what may be nothing more than another 66 pages of bad regulation.
4 Comments

The Reconveyance Drum-Beating Continues, Bitterly

10/9/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here’s to the 1st Amendment.  Ooh-rah.  Free speech lives. 

Conservation Northwest (one of the lead Park Department “partners”) continues to fly lowbrow, doing its best to denigrate everyone and anyone who dared raise questions at the first ever public hearing about this huge park expansion proposal on September 11.  Lobbing inane and sophomoric insults, boy have they ramped up the drama.

Despite the group’s claim that it seeks civil discourse (see their blog’s “Scat! Guidelines”), Con. Northwest has sunk to sleazy tactics to divide the community, branding all critics as late-coming, mean-spirited, tin foil hat throwbacks. 


And in a series of lame editorials, the website has bandied cracks like this (from  “A new soundtrack for Lake Whatcom”) since the hearing:   “Last night’s meeting was so packed that downtown Bellingham’s taverns reported weak sales, though they made up for it in the hour after the midnight adjournment.”    Tsk-tsk.

As for substance, let’s take a stroll through Conservation Northwest website’s recurring themes by giving them a little “fisk”:

“A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources and world-class outdoor recreation while maintaining quality municipal drinking water.  In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations. In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park,”  and  “The proposed new Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park would protect more than a quarter of a local watershed, which supplies water to half of Whatcom County's residents.”

Here we go, starting with the claim that the county needs to do this to protect Bellingham's water supply:

   Bellingham’s 2010 population was 81,000 according to Wikipedia.  That’s 20,000  shy of half the county’s residents, but who’s counting.   “More than a quarter” of the watershed they say.   It's not much over, so for this exercise we’ll go with one quarter.

   IF making this land a “preserve” did anything to improve the lake’s water quality (something Washington Ecology keeps evading), how much watershed or lake water quality improvement or protection would the park provide?

   Using a McDonald’s type “customers served” approach, 81,000 “served” by the lake divided by four (a quarter of the watershed), that comes to the protection of water used by 20,250 people.  That “service” would proportionately equate to protection of water-improvement for about 1/10th of the county’s population of 203,000 - not half.   Something like that.  The numbers are practically meaningless in any case, but this big-deal benefit is blown way out of proportion, dramatic as Lady GaGa.

“A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources...”

   Local control, how?  By all accounts, proponents say they don’t trust either the state or county council (present or future) to manage this land.  So they want “local control” by whom?  The Whatcom Land Trust, of course.  Now that’s a private non-profit, run by people who are not elected and therefore not actually accountable to the public.   How much did the land trust want a role in controlling the park?  Enough to pay the Mt. Baker School District $500,000 to change its position from “oppose” to “support.”  Whomever the movers and shakers were (ever see Spielberg’s “Pinky & the Brain”?), the half-mil deal was concocted at the same time the trust was penning a deal for itself.   Just the facts, man.

 “...world-class outdoor recreation...”

   While tongues wag about eco-tourism, mountain biking, horse riding, camping and fishing, the hard core want “wilding” and “quiet recreation" meaning passive activity only.    That would leave world class what?   Hiking, and nothing competitive.   Archie Bunker would say “Whoop-tee-do.”  WE hope the mountain bikers don't get their hopes up too high. That descent might be a lot less fun than the ones they're used to.

“...while maintaining quality municipal drinking water...”

   Again, there’s no reason to believe this would be "maintaining quality municipal drinking water."    Despite the talk, staff (not a retiree) at the Department of Ecology has continued to ramble on about TMDL and development.   But logging under the Landscape Plan has never allowed development so the whole thing's a "straw man" argument.   Furthermore, the Audubon Society has questioned for years that a park would cause more environmental harm than logging does.   They posted Tom Pratum's concerns repeatedly.

“In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations...”

   How many generations would it take this productive fir forest to become real “old growth”?  According to Wikipedia, a Pacific Northwest forest would need something like 250 years to achieve old-growth characteristics.  The wiki also says old growth forest can only have “minimal signs of human disturbance.”  At a minimum, it would take 120-150 years to reach pristine pre-development condition if the land weren’t used (a conflict with the “world class recreation” industry claim).

Last but not least, Conservation Northwest (and others, like Pete Kremen) continue to say, “In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park...”

  What “recent poll”?   Name it.  Show it.  Everybody is tired of hearing this.  If somebody knows what poll that was, send a note to "contact us" or leave a reply below.

Disproving balderdash is like shadow boxing.   WE question why council  should find ways to “make this move forward” when the need has never stood up to real scrutiny.   WE know reason doesn’t matter to some.  It’s all about the environment, man.   This "park" will be discussed at this morning's "Committee of the Whole" meeting at 9:30 a.m., County Council chambers.  Attend if you can; if not, stay tuned.  Meanwhile, enjoy a little chuckle from the past.


0 Comments

Crazy As Bedbugs - The U.N. Human Rights Council

10/8/2012

1 Comment

 
WE honestly don't know who this British guy is, but he delivers some bodacious clarity about the United Nations' Human Rights Council that we hope our left leaning readers will take to heart as they sit down to make their presidential vote.  Just how brilliant is the current administration's effort to make nice with the creeps running the U.N.?   How about all those globe trotting reach-outs to brutal, woman-hating, despotic regimes in the Middle East?   Is the administration's foreign policy workin' for ya?
Picture
Has there really been a bedbug infestation at the United Nations?   According to Reuters, oh yes.
1 Comment
    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.