4Organic? In or Out?

September 6, 2015

We recently acquired the name 4Organic.com.  Now I was pretty excited about this new acquisition to add to my portfolio but considering my mixed feelings about organic meat and produce I must question my motives.  Now I will be the first person in line at the veg. stand on the side of the road in our quaint little town, because I honestly think there is nothing better than the taste of a sun-ripened, warm mater right off the vine!  Delights my heart in Mid October just remembering biting into that sweet, ruby red tomato—no salt needed!  I can generally load up a grocery bag with the finest of what Mother Nature can produce for less than $10.00 and that includes all sorts of squashes, corn, cukes and whatever else my farmer neighbor down the streets happens to have out on his stand at the time. 

Now, this brings me to the crux of my problem.  Now it is mid October and all the stands in our town–and we have many–are closed down, well except for the HUGE one and they will be selling pumpkins for cheap, all squashes and gourds will be clearanced and Taters and Onions will be a bargain price of $5.00 for a 20 pound bag. until they pack up and head South for the winter. So it is finished and my heart cries out… So what am I to do?  I wander the “organic” isles of the grocery store and realize that I am being emotionally drained by STICKER SHOCK!  How in the world is it that I can buy 10 vine-ripened tomatoes from the stand down the street for about a $1.00 but here at the organic aisle in the store they are $6.99 a POUND!  WHAT!  How did this happen?  Will I have to settle for the “regular” (for lack of better words) produce until next summer?  And the answer to that question is; YES, YES I WILL!  BUT, will my family suffer for my cheapness?  Will they know the difference? Most likely not as they do not have the emotional attachment that I have formed to fresh, out of the garden veggies.  They do not have the anticipation that I have become accustomed to as I slowly drive up to the rickety stand on the side of the road…the giddiness that I have, just wondering what was harvested that day!  No, that is MY emotional attachment, they will just eat whatever I cook for them and gosh darn it, they will LOVE IT!

So what shall I do with the name 4ORGANIC.com?  Not sure yet.  Perhaps I will start a little Fungi farm in my basement.  I hear they can mushroom into very successful businesses 🙂

Cindy Burke, an author, cook, and blogger did an excellent interview with NPR news and she had some interesting comments regarding the organic industry.  Take a moment to check it out. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11251576

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4earth and Featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

31,000 and counting– scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

October 12, 2013

 

To read this story on the original site please go here

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

WND Exclusive HEAT OF THE MOMENT

31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’

Posted: May 19, 2008

8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an “escalation of the claims of ‘consensus,’ release of the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Mr. Al Gore, and related events,” according to officials with the project.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore’s office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about “global warming” have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by “global warming.”

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, “The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.”

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. On the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful,” he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on “global warming,” officials said.

“The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries,” Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

He said the “global warming agreement,” written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

“Yet,” he said, “the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

“The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration, and development.

“In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom,” he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,” officials told WND.

“The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

“In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For example, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists,” the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others “have claimed that the ‘science is settled’ – that an overwhelming ‘consensus’ of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.”

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project’s website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured Writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

This meme is used under the fair use doctrine as parody.

A Resolution geared at protecting Conservative Americans against Deploraphobia!

January 22, 2017

 

 

The Conservative Right is constantly reminded that we did not win the popular vote for this election.  The Left wants us, in no uncertain terms to understand that we are NOT the Majority, but the minority!  Well hot damn, we are considered a minority!  Ok, I can go with that.  However, that being said, where is Loretta Lynch?  Our US Attorney General!  Isn’t she supposed to protect our rights against intense violence and hate that has ensued as a result of Trump being elected as our President?  Democrats proposed a resolution (HR 569) and a stronger resolution, modeled on the HR 569 is currently in the US House of Representatives, this resolution condemns hate crimes against certain Minorities. 

Not all mind you, just one particular group.  This doesn’t seem to fit the American concept of equal justice one bit.  However, I will highlight a few of the qualifiers in this Resolution and add my own additions.  

“Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Trump speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by Domestic terrorist groups of US hatred of Trump, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives”—
(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Trump hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against Trump supporters or those perceived to be Trump supporters;

(4) recognizes that the United States Conservative community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Trump supporters in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Ok, so I rewrote this a bit.  Every place that it now says, Trump, or Trump supporters, Domestic, Conservative, replace with Muslim; that is the original text.  I think if the Attorney General was an advocate of protecting ALL citizens of the United States from violent acts of hate mongers, then this bill would not pertain only to protecting Muslims from Islamophobia, but every citizen of the United States against hate crimes. It would be ridiculous to create a resolution that only applies to persecuted Trump supporters, even though the numbers in that group are quite large and comprise a YUGE portion of the US population.  So why isn’t it just as ridiculous and pro-religionist (yep it’s a word) to have this Resolution/Bill pertain to Muslims only?  Attorney General Lynch states, “We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any particular group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action — and that violent action is what we would have to deal with,”  So Ms. Lynch, did you simply miss all the inspirational calling for acts of violence against Trump supporters for the last year or so?  Have you not seen the riots, the violent aggression against Trump Supporters?  I assume by your statement, that we are a, “particular group in America” and an extremely large group at that, but touted by the media and the Liberals as a minority–not the popular vote.  Have you not heard the “rhetoric” against us, that has inspired “others” to “violent action”?   Lynch goes on to state, “At this point…we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals. There are a number of groups that are on social media, looking to encourage people to commit acts of violence within the homeland, so at this point we simply do not want to rule anything out.”  UMMMM HELLO Ms. Lynch, WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HERE, WE’RE HERE!  Considering Mrs. Clinton called us, Islamophobes, to the entire world, am quite certain that your statements pertain to protecting Muslims against Conservatives.  Hmmmm, we are not flying planes into buildings, blowing up people, chopping off heads, driving trucks into crowded areas.  You also didn’t see us, blocking major highways, roadways, rioting, looting, destroying property, assaulting innocent people, etc.

So we have seen and are currently seeing this country ablaze with a conflagration, specifically intended to spark  against those who hold a certain belief that Trump is a person we support. It is our belief and our constitutional right to hold that belief.  And yet, we have an (outgoing) Attorney General, YOU, who have done absolutely nothing to protect the citizens of the US from the well organized and well funded domestic terrorists that have been and continue to perpetrate acts of violence and property destruction against those who hold a different ideology or belief than the “majority”!  Is it because we are not Muslims?  We are not Liberals?  Is it because we are average American Citizens?  Shouldn’t a proposed bill such as HR 569 equally protect ALL of the Citizens of the United States and not just one religious or political affiliation?  Or just this one, Muslim?  OR, was the Democratic agenda something completely different than protecting people?  I suspect the latter!   I will introduce yet another new word to add to our ever-expanding vocabulary,  DEPLORAPHOBIA!

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

Again, it boils down to the 1%…climate change elitists!

February 11, 2017

I have been so completely enthralled with the muses and thoughts of Scott Adams, that I had to post one of his blog entries here!

SCOTT ADAMS’ BLOG

  • TOP TECH

About the 97% of Climate Scientists

Posted February 10th, 2017 @ 2:31pm in #climate science

One of the most famous statistics in the world of politics is the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with the idea that humans activity is boosting CO2 to dangerous levels.

Critics say the 97% is misleading because the critics like to include in their own list the scientists that are working for energy companies. The industry-paid scientists and engineers have less credibility, say the critics of the climate science critics.

Recently I retweeted a link to a climate science whistleblower. I don’t have any way to evaluate his claims. But his story did a good job of illustrating the flow of data from the measuring devices all the way to the published papers and then to your brain. And what I got out of that was that very few people have direct access to the measuring devices and the original data. Let’s say 1% of climate scientists are actually involved in generating the temperature data and deciding what to include, what to smooth, what to replace, and so on. Apparently you can measure Earth’s temperature a number of ways, from ice core samples to satellites, to ocean buoys, to land thermometers. I might be missing a few. Oh, and each of those methods probably changes a bit over time, so you have some apples-to-oranges comparisons if you look at history.

In other words, even the 1% involved in direct measurements might not be involved in all the different forms of it.

What follows next is pure speculation, based on my years of experience in corporate America and my understanding of human nature. But it seems to me that 99% of the 97% are relying on the accuracy and honesty of the 1% who actually produce the temperature measurements. Sure, the other scientists read the papers and see whatever “adjustments” were made by the authors. But that seems like opening the hood of the car, looking at the outside of the engine, and determining that it’s all good on the inside.

Speaking of my corporate experience, this reminds me of a situation when I worked for the phone company. 100% of the employees believed that one of the Executive Directors in our group was a Ph.D. in some sort of technology field. After all, he said he was, and the Human Resources group does background checks before hiring. So he had to be a Ph.D., right?

But it turns out he was a con man. He had no Ph.D. The Human Resources group was two years behind in their background checks. When they caught up with him, he was fired immediately.

I’m open to correction on my assumption that 97% of climate scientists depend on the accuracy and honesty of the handful of people with direct access to the data. Let me know if I got that wrong. If I’m wrong, that supports my point that non-scientists such as myself can’t be expected to have useful opinions on science topics.

You just witnessed a little trick I learned from President Trump. I gave myself two ways to win and no way to lose. You should try it. It works every time.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157072093411/about-the-97-of-climate-scientists

All Credit for this post goes to Scott Adams, Creator of the Comic Strip, Dilbert!

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

 

AL GORE–NOT DOING HIS JOB IN PROMOTING THE USE OF ELECTRIC CARS!

August 6, 2017

I keep seeing all the bruhaha over Al Gore’s electric usage. 34% more than the average American household? Gee Al, how do you ever expect to make all these electric cars popular if you are only using 34% more than the average?

Well, being the electricity hog family that we are, it is just common sense that when you have a big house and are NOT really very energy-saving conscientious, your electric bill is going to be way higher than the average ranger. Now, we are just little peons in the wash cycle, but we do our share to keep our Electric company in the black. I suppose if we stood on our soapbox and screamed, “GLOBAL WARMING–We are all going to die if we don’t stop burning coal to make electricity.” (well our electricity comes from a hydro plant) then I would be considered a HUGE HYPOCRITE!

We are just a pod on the bean poll, but this is what I receive every few months from our electric company…personally, instead of guilting our family for using so much electricity, they should be sending us a gift certificate for dinner, to Panera perhaps for being such good and loyal customers.

GO AL GORE, KEEP THOSE ELECTRIC COMPANIES ROLLING IN THE PROFITS AND START DOING A BETTER JOB OF PROMOTING ELECTRICITY…34% THAT IS PATHETIC! YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO BETTER!   THE TESLA CORP IS DEPENDING ON YOU!

We are certainly doing our part…

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

Can’t See the Smoke Stacks for the smog. All-Electric House BAD! All Electric cars, GOOD!

December 27, 2018

 People get sold a bill of goods all the time. And with so much propaganda and misinformation spewed by companies like Google and the Obama era EPA, and the myriad of companies receiving government subsidies, it is difficult to sort through all the BS to find the truth. But so many times the truth is so common sense that it is like searching for something that is standing in clear sight but can’t be seen. And it is not that we are blind to it, it is just many simply don’t want to see it!

Sure, electric cars may save you money to drive and our government will give you a hefty kickback to purchase one, and you truly feel in your heart that you are producing 0% emissions tooling around in your automobile–talking the moral high ground so to speak…but are you really saving the planet? Have you ever wondered why ALL ELECTRIC houses are so expensive to heat and cool and people switch to natural gas because it is more efficient and much cheaper than electricity and better for the environment? We have all seen the pictures of the GIGANTIC smokestacks that produce the majority of our electricity as 63% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels–coal, natural gas, petroleum…and yet, so many are duped into thinking what’s bad for the dwelling is better for the driver. Then there are the batteries! The Energizer Bunny doesn’t just appear with a trunkload of batteries! Lithium must be mined and in great quantities to supply enough batteries to maintain and store all that energy that moves those “clean” “Green” cars. Talk about Raping the land!

A few years back, our local electric company would send me a guilt letter showing that our house used 10 times more electricity than our neighbors. It came with a graph and many options for us to cut back our electricity usage. It really was a dunning letter of sorts telling us that we were electricity hogs and that we should cut back! I called them and explained that the next letter of this nature better come with a customer appreciation gift card to our favorite restaurant as our COMFORT BILLING was almost $500 every month! “WE ARE PAYING TO KEEP YOUR LIGHTS ON THERE AT THE PLANT!” “Conserve, conserve…” was the sentiment of the gal on the other end of the line. So, it seems that ideology isn’t making its way to the Electric Car Industry, no, quite the contrary; the entire world is pushing the use of electric vehicles! Buy, buy, buy, and use more electricity and mine more lithium, is the Liberal, Environmental battle cry to save the planet. Does anyone but me see a blatant contradiction here? “Electric heating bad…Natural gas, good!”  “FOSSIL FUELS BAD…ELECTRICITY GOOD!”

“If you believe the headlines, traditional automobiles are speeding toward a dead end. All those V8s, V6s and turbocharged vehicles we’ve grown to love will soon be replaced by squadrons of clean, whisper-quiet, all-electric vehicles. And if you believe the headlines, the environment will be much better off.

Policymakers at every level have done their part to push electric vehicles by creating a tankful of subsidies. Thanks to laws signed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, electric-vehicle buyers can feast on federal tax credits of up to $7,500 that reduce the initial purchase cost of their vehicles. Not to be outdone, many states also dangle their own mix of goodies for electric vehicle buyers, including purchase rebates as large as $5,000, additional rebates for vehicle chargers, and free use of public charging stations—which, of course, are only “free” because they’re subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers. Some states even give electric vehicles preferential access to carpool lanes.

 Then there are the electric vehicle mandates. In January, California Gov. Jerry Brown decreed that 5 million electric vehicles must be on his state’s roads by 2025, along with 250,000 charging stations. Eight other states are followingCalifornia’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to banall internal combustion vehicles by 2040.

All of this might make sense if electric vehicles, as their supporters claim, were truly likely to reduce air pollution and tackle climate change. But are they?

To answer that question, I used the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent long-term forecasts for the number of new electric vehicles through 2050, estimated how much electricity they’d use, and then figured out how much pollution that electricity would generate, looking at three key pollutants regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act—sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulates—as well as CO2 emissions. I compared them to the emissions of new gasoline-powered vehicles, using the EIA’s “real world” miles-per-gallon forecast, rather than the higher CAFE standard values.

What I found is the widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second-largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

As for states like California with stringent mandates to use more renewable energy for their power grid, they also have the highest electric rates in the continental US, 50% higher than the US average. And electric rates in those states just keep increasing. So it’s a cleaner power mix but makes recharging your car more expensive. The higher the electric rate, the lower the incentive for a new car buyer to purchase an electric vehicle.

As for greenhouse-gas emissions, my analysis shows that electric vehicles will reduce them compared to new internal combustion vehicles. But based on the EIA’s projection of the number of new electric vehicles, the net reduction in CO2emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions. Such a small change will have no impact whatsoever on climate and thus have no economic benefit.

So, if electric-vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment, what—or who—do they help? Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide the back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.

In effect, the wealthy owners of electric vehicles will enjoy the benefits of their clean, silent cars, while passing on many of the costs of keeping their vehicles on the road to everyone else, especially the poor.

To be sure, electric cars are impressive. Some are quickeroff the line than a Formula 1 race car. But there is no economic or environmental justification for the many billions of dollars in subsidies that America is already paying to speed their adoption.

So what to do? First, Congress should immediately terminate those electric-vehicle tax credits, which just benefit the wealthy. Congress should also eliminate zero-emissions credits, which electric-vehicle manufacturers have used to boost their bottom line – $860 million for Tesla alone in the last three years. And third, states should eliminate their various subsidies for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, which are also paid for disproportionately by the poor and are contributing to rising electric rates.

Electric vehicle subsidies and mandates share an unfortunate and all too common trait with other government policies: They’re based on “conventional wisdom” that turns out to be wrong. Wealthy consumers who have purchased Teslas and Chevy Bolts primarily to signal their green bona fides for their friends and neighbors, and who have socialized many of the costs of their purchases to those who are less well-off, might wish to take a closer look at the numbers. Their hands may not be quite so clean as they believe.” John Lessor, President of Continental Economics

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

COCONUT OIL EXPOSES POLITICAL AGENDAS!

June 21, 2017

 

 

So, I was reading about the Trending Food Fad of Coconut oil. Evidently, the Heart Association didn’t have some kind words to say about this “miracle” food and Diana Rogers, a certified nutritionist who speaks at universities and conferences internationally about nutrition and sustainability, social justice, animal welfare, and food policy issues, has a huge issue with what the Heart Assoc. had to say. In her Blog, “Sustainable Dish” she rebutted with all her knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

It was the first sentence that caused me to read further: “You may have seen the news late last week about the latest “Presidential Advisory” on dietary fats released from the American Heart Association (AHA) published online in Circulation. ” Now, as a writer, I sometimes put QUOTES around a word that I want to bring special attention to and in this case–“Presidential Advisory”. The use of these quotes showed me her political stance. But what really spurred me on were these sentences, and this has more to do with EVERYTHING than just Coconut oil!

“Additionally, as with any non-profit organization, the AHA needs money. The best place to get money is from corporate sponsors…”

  • “It’s not a surprise the AHA was able to spin the current research to match their overall message.
  • “Funding for research is provided by government organizations or corporations. This influences the type of research that is funded and the types of findings that come out of research as a result.

“The Irony here, is that the Liberal community has no problem crying, “foul” and pointing their finger at Government or Corporate manipulation in skewing the facts to meet their agenda when it comes to something as TRIVIAL as Coconut oil, but gorge on the scale tipping, snake oil when it comes to issues like Global warming, abortion, evolution etc. They will follow the money trail only when it leads to their pot of Lucky Charms.

I am not saying that I disagree with what Ms. Rogers has to say…I agree with her 100%!

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Caretaker of 4EARTH and featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

DEATH BY NUMBERS!

September 6, 2018

The period of time in and around WWll was so devastating in terms of lives lost. Many of us Americans, especially younger people have little to no understanding of the magnitude of deaths that occurred in Communist and Socialist countries during that time period. https://youtu.be/7cgRwDkP6vk  VIDEO HERE

When we look at our own political climate, it becomes soberly clear that history has been forgotten and we are now tossed by the waves of ignorance…our children are violently screaming in the streets, begging for a political system that will ultimately destroy them; they see good as evil and evil as good and in their own ignorance they rally to; “JUST DO IT!” Nothing is more destructive to a Nation than a population that is ignorant and led by a corrupt, controlled media.

Teachers, I implore you to TEACH! Do NOT focus on “WHY” someone has a right to, for instance, kneel, instead start teaching history, start focusing on TRUTH, not personal feelings. In doing so our children will learn and understand, without any coercion or misconceptions the entire story, not simply bits and pieces used to blur their focus. It is not about your RIGHT to do something, it is about; are you RIght in what you do?

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Keeper of 4Earth and the featured Writer

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

DEERFIELD, IL IS A SAFER PLACE NOW! WE HAVE YOUR GUNS!

April 4, 2018

And so it begins! Those who have registered guns, those who have concealed carry permits will be the first targeted! It will be interesting to see how the “village” of Deerfield carries out this ban. “Rulemakers in the village of Deerfield, Illinois, have voted unanimously to ban semi-automatic rifles, along with pistols and shotguns “with certain features,” as well as with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” So, allow me to digress for a moment and point out something that piqued my spidey senses. The term, “village” used by the media and lawmakers in this, um, place. Words mean things and conger up ideas in one’s mind, like the term “village”. Sounds small, quaint and a by the technical term; Village – a village is a human settlement or community that is larger than a hamlet but, smaller than a town. A “human settlement”, well, ok. What criteria determines a human settlement a town? Large town – a large town has a population of 20,000 to 100,000. Town – a town has a population of 1,000 to 20,000. So, does Deerfield, IL fit into that commune type, everyone agrees and works together type of settlement? Deerfield, IL has a population of 18,686 and is the 2,338th largest city in the United States. The population density is 3,381 per sq mi which is 1421% higher than the Illinois average and 3632% higher than the national average. Well, that settles that, Deerfield is verging on a large town and well within the criteria of a town. But, even though…it is a village. Ok, call it a village…

I also wanted to know a little more about this quaint little village, like what kind of people live there? Are they average, middle-class Americans? First things first, let’s look at the average price of a home in Deerfield. Mean prices in 2016: All housing units: $595,599; Detached houses: $620,710. Holy WOW! That’s not the high-end homes, THAT’S THE AVERAGE COST! Ok, so we have a lot of wealthy people crammed into a very small space. What else is this town all about? The average income is $135,754. The vast majority all are college-educated and predominately white. Ok, now I have a better understanding of what makes up this community. Back to the realities at hand.

We have a Town, I mean Village that has approved a ban on certain weapons and if not removed, handed in or disposed of, the owner of such weapon will face a daily fine: “The new ordinance takes effect June 13. Residents who still have banned weapons after that date face up to $1,000 fines per day. The new ordinance was modeled on a ban put in place in Highland Park, Illinois, which went to the United States Supreme Court. The high court let a lower court ruling allowing the ban stand.”If Highland Park, if Deerfield, if more towns say no to this type of weapon, maybe the state of Illinois says no,” said Deerfield Village Manager Kent Street. “Maybe the federal government says no.”

One Deerfield resident, Dan Cox shared his reaction to the new gun ban stating, “You are the bureaucrats that Thomas Jefferson warned us about!” Another concerned citizen said, “The ordinance to store firearms was only passed for one reason… That was to have an amendatory vehicle that could be used in the future for just this purpose so you could banish assorted firearms in the future. First, it’s going to be assault rifles. [There will be] new bans in the future. It’s just a matter of time.” But wait for it, here it is, a high school student speaking out. “This is our fight. This is our generation’s fight, and we’re going to keep fighting,” Deerfield High School student Ariella Kharasch said at a public hearing, “Thank you for being part of that.” One reporter stated; “Local elected officials and high school students praised trustees for moving forward with the ban.” Notice here, two things, first we all know that even local government officials are elected, but it was important for a reporter to use the word, “elected” and secondly the praise comes from high school students…not one mention of citizens of Deerfield. Ahh, but the video below shows all the citizens of Deerfield are for this ban, or does it?

What do some of the citizens say about this ban, that was not put to a vote by the people, but passed by the Democrats on the demands of high school students and the progressive left? Obviously, Deerfield is Democrat-run and by definition, the people did vote those into office that ultimately made this decision, but as the case generally is, not everyone is happy about it.

Mitchell Shore said he is a state-certified law enforcement instructor who has trained more than 1,000 police in the use of the AR-15. He argued that there are plenty of gun laws on the books already, but they just need to be enforced more effectively. “Now that I’m retired, if you pass this ordinance I am now a criminal in the village’s eyes,” he said. “My over 20 years of law enforcement service mean nothing, and now I have to move or stay and break the law.” Some local gun owners spoke in opposition to the proposal. Daniel Easterday said he would be forced to cancel a $70,000 addition to his house and move again, having already moved out of Highland Park to avoid its weapon ban.

Watch the meeting here.  https://youtu.be/ZNfDE69UDr4

Now the speeches from the kids were very impassioned, however, not one addressed all the other factors that those who opposed this ban addressed, well, except for the last female student who admitted that “car accidents kill far more kids than guns.” These students nor the pro-grabbers mentioned the violence in video games, mental health issues in recent shooters, or the HUGE issue of bullying in school and the astronomical rate of school-age suicides due to this. Not mentioned by the leftists at this meeting or the kids who spoke was the fact that Nic Cruz was bullied, on medication to control his behavior and had been know as a public risk by many law enforcement agencies, school administrators, and students. These major issues were only mentioned by those who oppose this ban. Perhaps it is because these people actually WANT to address the real issues behind these violent acts. Unfortunately, it has taken gun bans for Conservatives to start to really become vocal about mental health issues, medicating children with adult drugs, bullying, etc. Maybe if we had yelled louder, or had our children marching on crusades against ANY of these issues that have been affecting them for years, then maybe, we wouldn’t be seen as the murderous NRA that the left coins us. We can’t keep saying–“guns don’t kill…people do”, because the Left doesn’t understand that. We must blame it on something other than people. So let’s start with Psychotropic drugs, and bullies (as long as we don’t put a face to a bully we should be fine).

So, this brings me to the main reason why I wanted to write this to you, today. It is a question, actually a series of questions pertaining to the gun ban in Deerfield, IL. Firstly, how will the “elected” local government enforce this ban? Secondly, how will law enforcement know who is in possession of these weapons, and lastly, will those who disobey this law have their guns confiscated along with the hefty daily fines–and if so, how will they go about that? These were the first questions that came to my mind when I read about this gun ban in Deerfield, IL.

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and featured writer

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

 

 

Dying to EAT!

May 6, 2017

I have had this conversation many times… There have been very few countries in this world, throughout history, where the poorest of the communities are the most overweight. Naura, for example, a tiny South Pacific Island with a population of 13 thousand, tops the charts as the most obese population at 94% chubbies, then comes Micronesia, the Cook Islands, Niue and finally Tonga rounding out the five top portly populations. The US hits the scales at number 9 of all the counties and number 1 in the industrialized nations on the world’s obesity scale. I have been chastised for suggesting that Food Handouts from the government be regulated, generally with the comment; “who are you to tell people what they can and can not eat?” And when I say, “I just care if people are OBESE!” Oh, Good Lord, that’s just a politically incorrect thing to say. But it’s time that we begin to address this HUGE issue with some intellectual honesty.

Well, it is quite obvious that our country is a leader in worldwide obesity and it is the most prevalent in those receiving “free food” due to financial inabilities. But why has it been a trending fact that these individuals become overweight while on the free food program? John Miltmore, writer for The Intellectual Takeout blog has this to say; “It’s a stunning shift in how we understand malnourishment. For almost the entirety of human history, the struggle for impoverished people was getting enough food to meet asufficient daily caloric intake. Today, the opposite is true: Low-income people are taking in too many calories (and often bad calories, at that) and are much more likely to be overweight than people in the middle and upper classes.” http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/us-has-fattest-poor-people-world-why) And it is not just this person’s blog that agrees with the connection between low-income people being obese, A 2010 study from Duke University proved this as did the Center for Disease Control.  Is this correlation simply because low-income people do not have the intellect to purchase more healthful foods?  Is it because chips, cookies, and soda taste yummy?  OR, could it be that it is cheaper to buy heavy calorie-laden foods than it is to buy fresh vegetables and lean meats?  And, considering so many fast food joints, pizza franchises and convenience stores are now accepting welfare money, making a bad food choice is so much easier now than ever before.  Come on, a full meal deal, loaded with more than the average daily calories can be consumed for less than $5 bucks!  So, do I think that most welfare recipients use the free food money they receive frivolously?   Yes AND No!  I believe that when folks are trying to stretch a buck, they will gravitate towards food items that are less expensive, which usually mean junk food/fast food, and sugar and fat are actually addictive to many bodies…the more you consume, the more you crave it.  It is rare when I hear someone say, “I need more carrots and broccoli…I just can’t get enough of them!”  Doritos on the other hand…

My solution is quite simple…just like the WIC (woman, infants & children) program regulates the amount and types of free food a woman receives for her child(ren), in the same manner, the food stamp program should be  regulated. With the WIC program, there is no monetary value put on the items you can buy, just a list of approved nutritional food: Milk, Cheese, Bread, Eggs, Peanut butter, vegetables… Sure, these women must bust out their paper stamps to claim their items, and there is a bit of social shaming that goes with that concept, not to mention holding up lines, but it works! You can’t buy Cheetos, cookies, ice cream, etc on WIC, and no one seems to have an issue with this, because that is just how it is and those are the rules to receive FREE food for you and your child. And there was a time in the not so gone by past that food stamps were not cleverly disguised as plastic debit looking cards, even the new name, EBT sounds better than, food stamps. It seems quite obvious by this point, that the current way of distributing money for food is just NOT WORKING as planned. When 1 in every 3 children are overweight and 1 in 6 are considered obese, and the majority of these statistics are from low-income families who receive Welfare in the form of food; the system needs to change. If the entire point of the Welfare food program is to enable people to obtain nutritional food, why isn’t that being enforced? One would think that low-income people do not have high-end smartphones but the vast majority do. An app could be created that could easily scan the item to see if it qualifies under the NUTRITIONAL guidelines that a Welfare recipient should have to follow. This regulation works well for the WIC program, why not the Welfare Food program? Not only would this reduce Government fed obesity, but it would also thin out Welfare fraud. After all, no one is really chomping at the bit to steal or trade fruits and veggies on the black market, no they want premium food, like Porterhouse and Lobster, that’s where the money is!

If we truly want to get America healthy again, especially those on Welfare food who have found themselves tipping the scales as a result of consuming unhealthy items, then let’s do it. The problem must be addressed, and an easy solution formulated. If WIC can do it, so can the Welfare Food program.

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and the featured writer.

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.