Community-Wealth.org…Agenda 21 in Action

Browse this website http://community-wealth.org/ if you want to see how Agenda 21 is put into action.  While this organization does not mention Agenda 21 by name, there is no doubt that it is following the A21 playbook.

It is supported by the Institute for Policy Studies, which is probably the largest and oldest left-wing think tank.  It has long supported communist and anti-American projects around the world.

These resources and strategies will be used in your own state and community if you are not careful.  They are already being done in New Jersey and California but we can fight back.  Resist it wherever you are.

EPA Stealthily Propels Toward ‘Massive Power Grab of Private Property Across the U.S.’

Thanks to Ray Spitzer for finding this article.

The next step will be the EPA saying that your tap water is covered under these regulations and they will have the right to enter your home to check on it.

Second amendment anyone?

George

WASHINGTON — While the country is immersed in Obamacare headlines and a congressional tussle over delays and mandates, the Obama administration is stealthily moving toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.

The Clean Water Act redefinition of “waters of the United States” would include all ponds, lakes, wetlands and natural or manmade streams that have any effect on downstream navigable waters — whether on public lands or private property.

And, committee Republicans note, the administration is trying to move forward with the rule at a breakneck pace, relying on the findings of a scientific report that hadn’t undergone peer review at the time the rule was submitted to the White House for approval.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said after seeing the proposal. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

“The Obama administration’s latest power play to regulate America’s waterways is an unprecedented effort to control the use of private property,” Smith added, promising to question McCarthy this week about her agency’s “ever-expanding regulatory agenda.”

The EPA has made no secret of wanting to balloon its jurisdiction over all waters, even testing the limits by going after businesses that could potentially taint any type of water on its way to a body of water.

via PJ Media » EPA Stealthily Propels Toward ‘Massive Power Grab of Private Property Across the U.S.’.

EPA Stealthily Propels Toward Massive Power Grab

I suppose this means that all our homes are subject to EPA regulation since our waste water eventually finds its way into the navigable waterways.  I better not flush my toilet anymore.

George

This article comes from PJ Media

by Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — While the country is immersed in Obamacare headlines and a congressional tussle over delays and mandates, the Obama administration is stealthily moving toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.

The Clean Water Act redefinition of “waters of the United States” would include all ponds, lakes, wetlands and natural or manmade streams that have any effect on downstream navigable waters — whether on public lands or private property.

And, committee Republicans note, the administration is trying to move forward with the rule at a breakneck pace, relying on the findings of a scientific report that hadn’t undergone peer review at the time the rule was submitted to the White House for approval.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said after seeing the proposal. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

“The Obama administration’s latest power play to regulate America’s waterways is an unprecedented effort to control the use of private property,” Smith added, promising to question McCarthy this week about her agency’s “ever-expanding regulatory agenda.”

The EPA has made no secret of wanting to balloon its jurisdiction over all waters, even testing the limits by going after businesses that could potentially taint any type of water on its way to a body of water.

A federal court recently threw out the EPA’s attempt to force a poultry farmer in West Virginia to obtain a costly Clean Water Act permit, determining that storm waters flowed across the farmer’s property and eventually wound up in “waters of the United States.” For this, the farmer was threatened with possible imprisonment and fines of up to $37,500 per day as the EPA maintained she was responsible for any feathers or manure bits making their way to a waterway.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia noted that “common sense and plain English lead to the inescapable conclusion” that runoff from storm water doesn’t fall within the guidelines of needing a permit under the Clean Water Act, a decision that Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the EPA needed to accept and extend to all of its enforcement operations.

“It’s clear that EPA had no business subjecting this poultry farmer to a bureaucratic maze of federal regulation. This is just another attempt from EPA to expand its regulatory powers,” Vitter said last week. “Following the court decision, I hope EPA will reconsider its CWA enforcement priorities and nationally implement the decision’s analysis of the CWA so that farmers and other land owners are not further confused or otherwise harassed by the agency.”

via Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » EPA Stealthily Propels Toward ‘Massive Power Grab Of Private Property Across The U.S.’.

The EPA is at it Again.

PJ Media - WASHINGTON — While the country is immersed in Obamacare headlines and a congressional tussle over delays and mandates, the Obama administration is stealthily moving toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

walter-peck

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.

The Clean Water Act redefinition of “waters of the United States” would include all ponds, lakes, wetlands and natural or manmade streams that have any effect on downstream navigable waters — whether on public lands or private property.

And, committee Republicans note, the administration is trying to move forward with the rule at a breakneck pace, relying on the findings of a scientific report that hadn’t undergone peer review at the time the rule was submitted to the White House for approval.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said after seeing the proposal. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

“The Obama administration’s latest power play to regulate America’s waterways is an unprecedented effort to control the use of private property,” Smith added, promising to question McCarthy this week about her agency’s “ever-expanding regulatory agenda.”

The EPA has made no secret of wanting to balloon its jurisdiction over all waters, even testing the limits by going after businesses that could potentially taint any type of water on its way to a body of water...

Full article at PJMedia...

F.H. Buckley: We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight the Bike Lanes – WSJ.com

This is straight from the Agenda 21 playbook.  In our area they are putting bike lanes on Route 22, one of the busiest and most dangerous highways in New Jersey.  It was built in the 30's, has 3 lanes in each direction with a center island that has businesses in it.  You sometimes make left turns with a small deceleration lane on the left or by a jug handle on the right.  Normal speed of traffic is 60-65 on a road engineered for 50.

And they want bike lanes. No cyclists now use it and there is no place to go to or come from, other than by car.  You can't cross it safely other than by pedestrian bridges, spaced every 5 miles or so..  Yet they are spending $$$ to put in bike lanes and reduce the size of the shoulders.

The following is from the Wall Street Journal.  What is happening in Virginia and New Jersey is soon coming to you.  Beware.

George

My brave little neighborhood of King Street in Alexandria, Va., has calmly met the challenges of the Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War, but now we're seriously annoyed. What's bothering us are the bike wars. The city of Alexandria has proposed to take away our street's parking spaces and replace them with a dedicated bike lane. The preening activists who favor these lanes are in my town, and they will soon come to a neighborhood near you if they're not there already.

It's not as though local cyclists favor King Street. It's a main artery, State Highway 7, that runs for 70 miles east from George Washington's Alexandria to Patsy Cline's Winchester in the west. Each day the road conveys 15,000 commuters past my house, traveling from Arlington and Fairfax to their jobs in Old Town or to the Patent and Trademark Office, along a two-lane street only 30 feet wide. Cars speed by, and city buses plow through our red lights at 40 miles per hour.

Our stretch of King Street is also extremely steep. The very few cyclists you do see on this thoroughfare use the sidewalk, as they are permitted to do. Coming up the hill, they rarely move faster than the very few pedestrians, so everyone's safe.

As for the residents, we're really attached to our parking spots. We like to tell our friends to drop by anytime. We don't want to send our plumbers to park a few blocks over, on streets that are already congested. Not a problem, the city tells us. Just get a special parking permit from city hall for visitors. And what about the occasional party? What do we tell our guests? Ah, the city's street coordinator said, channeling her inner Marie Antoinette, let them get valet parking.

Enlarge Image

Part of the bike brigade in Alexandria, Va. City of Alexandria

Many people on our street are bicyclists, so we're not antibike. When bicycling, however, we never use King Street. We'll take the safe side streets that get us to wherever we want to go. We're also not fabulously wealthy. We don't hire valets to park cars for our visitors.

But the bike activists are mobilizing the troops. The cycling advocacy blog Wash Cycle published a two-step action plan, calling on proponents to stand up for the lanes by inundating the city council with support. Alexandria Transportation Commissioner Kevin Posey has taken to firing off tweets about how "some neighbors can't bear the thought of giving up unused parking," and that opposition to bike lanes represents "a trend where a few wealthy residents oppose projects to benefit middle class consumers."

The problems of a few hundred Alexandria residents wouldn't deserve a great deal of attention if all this weren't part of a growing national movement that pits local homeowners and businesses against cyclists and their trendy allies on city councils. It happened in Washington, D.C., in 2011, when Adrian Fenty's support for bike lanes helped make him a one-term mayor, and it's going to happen across Alexandria. Bike wars have also broken out in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Seattle, Austin and elsewhere.

Forget religion and politics, says New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. What you don't want to talk about at dinner parties is bike lanes, she told a luncheon in January.

We're seeing a similar kind of activism in the national "Park(ing) Day" movement. These are open-source events when artists and activists take over a parking space, put a coin in the meter, and for two hours turn the space into a mini-park or gallery. We've had them in Alexandria, and they can be a lot of fun, bringing out the tiny anarchist in all of us. What's behind the movement, however, is an anticar political agenda. The Park(ing) Day Manual tells us the point of the movement is to let people know that "inexpensive curbside parking results in increased traffic, wasted fuel and more pollution."

Our little squabble illustrates the tactics you can expect to see when the bike wars reach you. Cyclist-commuters may number no more than 2% of the adult American population according to a 2002 report by The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, but they are the ones who go to city council meetings. They'll push for the kind of "Complete Streets" policy that our city adopted, one that gives priority to pedestrians and cyclists over cars.

In the abstract, that will sound innocuous, but when the time for implementation arrives, you'll find yourself losing your street parking, street by street, as roads are repaved. And parking spaces are just the beginning. As Mr. Posey wrote on the blog Greater Greater Washington, "if we can't take a few parking spaces, how will we take the traffic lanes?"

When you see the bike activists in your neighborhood, be warned that they tend not to play nice. Our local gang misrepresents their number and talks of assembling a "critical mass" of cyclists who will ride together up King Street. On their blog, one of them urges bicyclists to "ride slowly and smack in the middle of the lane, especially at peak times."

Come to think of it, if you've ever been held up by a cyclist blocking traffic when there was plenty of space on the side of the road, you've already participated in the bike wars.

via F.H. Buckley: We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight the Bike Lanes - WSJ.com.

The Alternative to the IPCC

There has been recently, a lot of "to do" about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's new Assessment Report 5 (AR5), with its political makeup, its closed-door meetings, and scrambling to "explain away" the lack of any real global warming over the last 15 years.

But there is another group of international scientists which...

...released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, which cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, also found that "no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments" and no convincing case can be made that "a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling." The U.N.'s panel is scheduled to release its next report next month.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations."

read more at Breitbart.com

We'll see how much media coverage the NIPCC gets in the coming weeks and months.

AGENDA 21 ALERT – Sea Bright Takes Hurricane Sandy as an Opportunity to Reinvent Itself – NJ Spotlight

AGENDA 21 ALERT

Three proponents of Agenda 21 (New Jersey Future, Sustainable Jersey, and Rutgers University's Bloustein School of Planning) are "helping' the small community of Sea Bright, NJ to plan for their future.  Sea Bright was devastated by Sandy.

They are proposing sustainable development and smart growth.  They are also proposing a regional approach to local solutions. They are using the DELPHI technique at town hall meetings to further their aims.  It is likely that the meetings were populated by left leaning people, who were probably the only ones notified.

This is how they get control of our governments.  The next step is likely to be a consortium of communities to whom the local politicians will delegate control over planning and spending.  The government will then consist of the unelected planner.  Taxes will be thrust upon the state government making it impossible for local citizens to protest.

The next step will be seizing property by eminent domain in order to develop it for the common good (New Jersey Future is dominated by corporations that would benefit from this).  Since their properties will have little value (since the government has declared them ineligible for future storm insurance) the citizens will be screwed.  However, the world will be saved.

Watch for this kind of activity in your own communities.  Stop it while you can.

George

PS...be sure to click on the link to read the entire article

Sea Bright Takes Hurricane Sandy as an Opportunity to Reinvent Itself

Scott Gurian | September 9, 2013

Sea Bright Mayor Dina Long addressing residents at a recent community planning meeting.

When Sandy came ashore last October, Sea Bright’s downtown was severely flooded, with more than a thousand homes and businesses damaged or destroyed and the streets filled with mountains of sand and debris.

seabrightmayor

Sea Bright Mayor Dina Long addressing residents at a recent community planning meeting.

Ten months later, as the repairs continue, the borough is using the experience to reinvent itself and plan for the future, working with the neighboring town of Highlands to take a regional approach to its recovery.

Both New Jersey Future and Sustainable Jersey are leading the project, along with a similar effort in Ocean County’s Little Egg Harbor, and in another group of towns -- Downe, Commercial, and Maurice River townships -- in Cumberland County. In each of these communities participating in the “Local Recovery and Resiliency Network,” New Jersey Future will embed a planner for the next 18 months to help oversee the long-term rebuilding effort on a local level, with a focus on sustainability, mitigation, and collaboration with neighboring municipalities.

The project may be extended to three years, depending upon funding. Meanwhile, Sustainable Jersey’s Resiliency Coordinators will work on developing storm mitigation strategies on a more regional basis.

The overall goal of the Local Recovery and Resiliency Network is to channel Sandy’s destruction into a chance to return to the drawing board and reimagine how towns should best be developed to make them more sustainable and prepare for the predicted effects of climate change. While the process may be difficult for lifelong residents, used to things the way they are, Sea Bright Mayor Dina Long said they really have no choice. “Change has already happened. And it happened to us in one fateful night,” she said. “And so we’re now learning to embrace that.”

As a narrow strip of land, bordered by the ocean on one side and the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers on the other, Sea Bright’s battles with Mother Nature are nothing new. Frank Lawrence remembers regular flooding when he grew up there in the early 1950s. “I think we were evacuated about five times. And at that point my mother said, ‘That’s enough!’ and we moved across the river,” he recalled.

Though Lawrence hasn’t lived in town for decades, he’s maintained a strong attachment to Sea Bright over the years. After Sandy, Mayor Long called and asked him to help lead the town

via Sea Bright Takes Hurricane Sandy as an Opportunity to Reinvent Itself - NJ Spotlight.

Resilient Communities and our Supervisors…How ICLEI is Invading California

(HT to CalCoastNews.com)

This is Agenda 21 at its ultimate.  ICLEI is an international NGO whose mission is to institute Agenda 21 everywhere. ICLEI is not our friend.  Read this and see how ICLEI does it.  They are everywhere but they CAN be resisted.

George

.............................

Resilient Communities and our Supervisors

September 5, 2013
Tom Dawson
OPINION By TOM DAWSON

On June 21, 2013, the Central Coast Resilient Communities Symposium was held in Santa Barbara. Local officials, key government staff and selected business and non-profit executives in the Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Opispo counties were invited. It was sponsored by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, commonly known as ICLEI.

Several months ago, some citizens attending a San Luis Opispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) meeting asked about our political connection to ICLEI and were assured that, although SLOCOG had purchased and used their software in 2008, they no longer had a membership with ICLEI.

Yet, just two months ago, two of our county supervisors and Mayor Jan Marx signed an agreement at the symposium in Santa Barbara.

Their actions didn’t seem merely ceremonial but a significant statement of their goals for SLO County… for all of us! So I decided to research ICLEI and found that it was launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for A Sustainable Future and was instrumental in the development of United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. (Research it yourself and you will see that these two organizations use the same language.) ICLEI even drafted Chapter 28 of the Sustainable Development workbook.

So what’s so bad about ICLEI? A closer look at their goals and objectives will answer that. ICLEI communicates with local special interests to translate international policy into local and regional legislation. It’s objectives presuppose the notion that legislation is the only method of improving the conditions or problems of the world. This notion denigrates the intelligence and ingenuity of local individuals (like you and me) and our ability to address problems of our own lives and property. We are marginalized and placed under increasing oversight of government planners.

So I am legitimately concerned that, on one hand, we’re fed a denial of any influence of or involvement with ICLEI, and on the other hand, two supervisors and our mayor signed an agreement to promote its goals and objectives in our county.

As I consider a global organization like ICLEI intrusively analyzing our local problems and deciding the best solutions for us, I wonder, “How will their policies change the unique character of our rural communitites?”

We moved to SLO county because we wanted to own property and have space to raise our family, plant gardens and orchards, raise animals and work on personal projects. ICLEI’s main objectives include moving people off the rural, open land areas and into higher density housing in towns and villages, concentrated around transportation hubs with trains and buses. Private property and cars will go away or be heavily restricted, as well as other aspec

[via Resilient Communities and our Supervisors.]

History of Sustainability Courtesy of the EPA

The following explains the role of Agenda 21 in the philosophy and rules of the EPA and other federal agencies.  While it was instituted during the Clinton administration, Agenda 21's principles have proliferated under Obama.

Many of our opponents deny that Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the EPA.  Here is the reality.

Local and state officials are also deniers but you will find links from their websites to this one.  Here is the proof that Agenda 21 exists and how it is used.

George

 

History of Sustainability - Creation of EPA and NEPA

In the United States, the first establishment of a national policy for environmental sustainability came in 1969 with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) whose purpose was to "foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations."

National Links

Sustainability Home
Basic Information
Where You Live
What EPA is Doing
How Can I Help?
A-Z Index

On July 9, 1970, amid a growing public demand for cleaner water, air and land, President Nixon submitted to Congress a reorganization plan proposing the establishment of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an independent agency in the executive branch of the federal government. The plan proposed bringing together 15 components from five executive departments and independent agencies.

On December 2, 1970, the EPA began its operations, assuming responsibility for carrying out federal laws to protect the environment. Stated broadly, the job of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to improve and preserve the quality of the environment, both national and global. EPA works to protect human health and the natural resources on which all human activity depends.

Stockholm Conference

Another major event of the 1970's was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (known as the Stockholm Conference) held in 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden. During a 1971 preparatory meeting for this conference, developed nations expressed concern about the environmental consequences of increasing global development, while nations that were still developing raised their own continuing need for economic development. Thus the concept of "sustainable development" was born out of an attempt to find a compromise between the development needs of the nations in the Southern Hemisphere and the conservation demands of the developed nations in the North.

The conference heightened awareness of the global nature of environmental problems and set in motion events that lead to the general acceptance of the idea of "sustainable development" as a means of realizing the developmental needs of all people without sacrificing the earth's capacity to sustain life.

United National Environmental Program (UNEP)

Out of the Stockholm Conference, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) was formed with a mandate to promote the idea of environmentally-sound development. Based in Nairobi, Kenya, UNEP provided the UN with an agency to examine the world's growing environmental and development problems with a view to making recommendations to national governments and international bodies on appropriate actions. Eventually the work of the UNEP helped launch, among other things, the International

via History of Sustainability.

Why is it that New Jersey is the pilot for Obama’s experiments for the country?

Why is it that New Jersey is the pilot for Obama's experiments for the country?

Last week I attended a meeting for together New Jersey. You may recall that this is the renamed 2035 regional transportation plan that was used as the template for the receipt of a HUD grant. Various organizations throughout the state lobbied their freeholders, to no avail, to not accept this money. We were afraid that significant strings would be attached that would obligate the counties to adhere to the administrations redistributionist agenda. They didn't listen to us and took the money.

Now the plan has morphed from a transportation plan to a plan that will focus on the health and welfare of the region, dictating regional policy at the expense of local land-use policy, all without the legislature or the Gov.'s office being involved. As part of the receipt of the HUD money, the counties signed memoranda of understanding that bound them to whatever the plan became.

The counties (some of them) get a vote on the standing committees for together North Jersey, along with hundreds of other "stakeholders". The freeholders told us that they would get a place at the table and thus be able to influence what the plan became. They didn't understand that the table included 200 other diners. Most of these people are left-wing central planning and redistributionist zealots that seem to have little regard for individual freedom or private ownership of land. They think that it is much better to have a "regional government" than home rule. In fact, they think that home rule and "suburban sprawl" are terrible ideas. It is better to have the "experts" decide our fate rather than rely on the people themselves. A glance at the together North Jersey website is proof enough of what they want.

One of the moderators stated at the meeting that together North Jersey is a pilot program that will be used as a template for the rest of the United States. That really makes me feel good. They will take our state, dominated by left-wing Democrats and Republicans (including the governor) and remake the United States in the same way. State governments won't matter, County governments won't matter, municipal governments would matter, the only thing that will be important will be the federal government and the quasi governments set up on a regional basis.

Folks, this is Agenda 21 in action.  If it is enacted it will be taking us a long way towards our demise as state and country.

Here is another example. Today, Gov. Christie announced that he would accept the Medicaid portion of Obamacare. It is free money and will help pay for the state version of Medicaid, even though it expands Medicaid and there is no guarantee that the funding will continue after four years. Of course, Christie will not be here in four years. If anybody wonders if Christie got in bed with Obama after the Sandy disaster, they should wonder no longer. This guy is not a conservative. Kudos to CPAC for not inviting him this year. I would've spent the money to go and throw rotten tomatoes at him. Of course, New Jersey will again be the template for much of the rest of the country, taking free money and betting that the teat will be filled with milk forever.

A third example. NJ Spotlight today posted an article that New Jersey's approach to offshore wind is a model for the rest of the country. It should be copied by the other states along the eastern seaboard, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. What they particularly liked was a way to guarantee revenue for the developers. In other words, revenue is taken from our tax base to pay for higher cost energy that will be of little value to people and businesses in the state. In the meantime, impediments are put into place for the transport and production of low-cost energy such as natural gas. This is settled us with some of the highest energy costs in the country and it doesn't have to be. However, it is consistent with what the radical environmentalists in the EPA and DOE want.  Give us wind mills regardless of the cost.  We lose jobs and our economy sucks in the process, but who cares.  Of course people will not have the money to buy the more expensive energy...but Obama was never really concerned about jobs and the economy.

New Jersey is the guinea pig.  We are the canary in the coal mine.  We have the opportunity to tell the Federal government to butt out.  Let us live our own lives in the way we deem best.  New Jersey has a large and diverse economy...larger than most countries.    We don't need to be told what to do.  We should take the lead without being "nudged" by the federal bureaucrats.  We should tell them to take their bribe money and take a hike...use it to pay off the debt.

Unfortunately, Christie wants a second term as governor and wants to run for President.  He'll take the bribes in order to get the votes.  We all suffer in the process.

It is time to get a backbone.