What Is Actually Being Conserved: Eugenics, Oil & Child Welfare

We, as a nation, no longer sterilize in the name of eugenics, we snatch the kids of the "genetically unfit" and put them in foster care.

We no longer sell children, we adopt them out.

We no longer call it eugenics, we call it child welfare.

That is why we fund the care of the inferior ("The Poors" always said with clinced teeth) as targeted populations.

Yes, policy creation always starts with the child because no one cares, oh, and it is the work of the tax exempt God.

In watching the video, you shall have an introduction in to what is being conserved.

Stay tuned, I will be publishing the first in a series of my books as soon as these Meanies give me a break from being so mean!

TRANSCRIPT AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil

 The 20th century was the century of oil. From farm to fork, factory to freeway, there is no aspect of our modern life that has not been shaped by the oil industry. But as the "post-carbon" era of the 21st century comes into view, there are those who see this as the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn't be more wrong. This is the remarkable true story of the world that Big Oil is creating, and how they plan to bring it about.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & JOHNSON: Republicans' Anti-Regulatory Agenda Is Not Only A "Better Way" For Big Business, Not Working Americans

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens introduced the anti-regulatory portion of their so-called “Better Way” agenda.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA) today released the following statements in response to this report:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Congress needs to focus on finding real solutions to real problems facing the Nation, such as gun violence, the erosion of voting rights, and growing economic inequality. But once again, House Republican leaders reveal they have no new ideas to help create jobs and improve the lives of ordinary hardworking Americans.  Instead they rebrand old, discredited anti-regulatory proposals designed to benefit big business,” said Congressman Conyers.  “Economic studies have shown that regulations help our economy, not burden it.  More importantly, regulations ensure better working conditions, a cleaner environment, and safer and more innovative products.

Congressman Conyers continued, “Americans want the benefits that regulation provides.  House Republican leadership should stop attacking federal regulatory agencies and admit that their decades-old, anti-regulatory agenda simply prioritizes corporate profits over people.”

“This report is more evidence that Republicans would rather govern by tired and unfounded rhetoric than through sound policy,” said Congressman Johnson. “Few, if any, of these anti-government reforms are new ideas. We have held more than 30 hearings on many of these dangerous proposals; each are designed to unduly constrain agencies from protecting the public interest by keeping our water, food, and air safe. At this point, the record is etched in stone: regulatory reform is a handout to the donor class designed to insulate reckless corporations from public accountability in any form.”

On the House Judiciary Committee alone, House Republicans have held 33 anti-regulation hearings since the start of the 112th Congress, but not a single hearing this Congress on:

o   Gun violence;

o   Voting rights;

o   The impact of overwhelming student loan debt on families and the economy;

o   The mortgage foreclosure crisis, which still is hampering the economic recovery of millions of American families;

o   or how we can better help struggling American families regain their financial stability.

Fact Sheet...Gop’s Anti-regulatory Agenda is Only a “Better Way” for Big Business, Not Working Americans

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, LOFGREN: HOUSE GOP’S SO-CALLED “BETTER WAY” HAS NO NEW IDEAS, DOES LITTLE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s Task Force on National Security introduced its national security portion of the so-called “Better Way” agenda – a rebranding of old partisan proposals.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) released the following joint statement after the release of this report:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“It was our hope that this initiative might yield new, constructive ideas in the fight to keep our country safe. Sadly, this report lacks substantive detail, and appears to be largely a reworking of broad policy pronouncements that have been circulating the Hill for years.  It is not enough to simply list our Nation’s challenges and blame them on immigrants, refugees, and President Obama.”

Notably, the report announced today calls for various changes to our immigration laws—despite the Republican-controlled Congress’s refusal to join House Democrats to pass comprehensive immigration reform.   The report also fails to address several clear national security concerns, including climate change and various global health crises. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Blumenauer, Conyers Lead Letter Urging EPA to Protect Pollinators & Further Examine Impacts of Pesticides on Pollinators

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, DC – Representatives Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) and John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) led 38 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in sending a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns regarding the agency’s assessment of the impacts of the widely used insecticide, imidacloprid, on pollinators. Imidacloprid is a type of neonicotinoid, a class of pesticides that has been linked to declining pollinator populations.

In January, EPA released its Preliminary Pollinator Assessment to Support the Registration Review of Imidacloprid, which found that imidacloprid does pose a risk to honey bees. This assessment, however, failed to address many important issues necessary to reversing pollinator losses. In their letter, the lawmakers call on EPA to further examine the impacts of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids by evaluating: their impacts on native bee species; the risks of other stressors on honey bees in conjunction with exposure to pesticides; and the effects when multiple pesticides are used together.

“Since beekeepers began reporting massive bee die-offs more than a decade ago, the health of our nation’s honey bees and other pollinators has been a continuing source of concern,” the lawmakers wrote. “In order to meet the goals of reversing pollinator losses and restoring healthy populations laid out in this strategy, EPA must strengthen and improve the scope of its risk assessment of neonicotinoids.”

Continued decline in bee populations will have serious implications to American food production and the economy. Approximately one in three bites of food benefits from bee pollination. Pollinators provide $24 billion a year to the economy, $15 billion of which is contributed by honey bees. Many crops, including almonds, cranberries, and apples, rely almost entirely on bees and other pollinators.

Representatives Conyers and Blumenauer have long championed efforts to protect our pollinators. Last year, they reintroduced Saving America’s Pollinators Act, legislation that requires EPA to take swift action to prevent mass bee die-offs and protect the health of honey bees and other critical pollinators by suspending the use of neonicotinoids. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Administrator of the EPA, to monitor the health of native bee populations and to identify and publicly report the likely causes of bee kills.

CONYERS, Blumenauer Lead Letter Urging EPA to Protect Pollinators & Further Examine Impacts of Pesticid...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Congress Should Heed Pope Francis' Call to Answer the 'Cry of the Earth and the Cry of the Poor'

By John Conyer

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

This  summer, Pope Francis released one of the most important and eloquent works of our time: Laudato Si.  A meditation on modern culture and our responsibilities to our creator and one another, it directly confronts the sin and injustice of continued environmental degradation and inaction on climate change.

Wednesday, Pope Francis delivered that urgent message directly to the American people. Speaking at the White House, he applauded President Obama for his work to repair our "common home" and he encouraged us to consider the world we leave our children and which we create for others.

A man of peace and a man of the poor, Pope Francis speaks out of obligation because to him our situation compels it. He recognizes that our planet "groans in travail" at the "sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life." He reminds us that our climate, "a common good, belonging to all and meant for all" is imperiled by greenhouse gases. He sees our failure to consider the environmental threats to our most vulnerable brothers and sisters as pointing "to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded."

The pope uses reason matched to principle to point out a simple truth -- climate change is happening and it will hit the weakest the hardest because they lack the resources to prepare.

Examples of this inequity are abound. Drought in California makes produce more expensive, but it leads to famine in sub-Saharan Africa. Storm surges and flooding will destroy the coastal homes of the wealthy, but will kill those without transportation as it did in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward. Wealthy countries with political and capital reserves remain stable during tough times, but resource shocks can drive developing nations to war and destruction. Extreme heatwaves are tolerable with air-conditioning, but are deadly without it. These challenges can drive migration that presents its own dangers.

As leader of a church with 1.25 billion members and two thousand years of institutional history, Pope Francis cannot remain silent -- many of those at greatest risk are part of his flock. But he is also worried about those whose disrespect for creation and preference for comfort over sacrifice drives climate change skepticism. He must make them hear too the "cry from the earth and cry from the poor."

That means calling upon the freest and strongest country in the world to account for its timid skepticism. Pope Francis' sternest reminder falls upon wealthy countries, like the United States, where our public moral and religious dialogue all too frequently ignores the inconvenient truth that our comfort and prosperity threatens lives at home and elsewhere.

Congress could do worse than to rise to Pope Francis' challenge and stand up for the most vulnerable in the face of fierce opposition by powerful interests. Because while we may not always see eye to eye with the Pope on matters of theology or public policy, America was founded, as President Ronald Reagan said, "a shining city upon a hill". If we truly believe that destiny -- in American exceptionalism itself -- then we have a duty to sacrifice and act exceptionally. As America's greatest theologian, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

I am glad that Pope Francis has asked us directly to measure where we stand in these challenging times. His is a needed reminder and an act of good conscience. As he becomes the first Pontiff in history to address the United States Congress, I appreciate his wise counsel on the issues that our nation and the world must confront and I join millions of Americans in welcoming him to our nation.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. in Opposition to H.R. 348, the “Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015"

            “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 348, the ‘Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015’ or so-called RAPID Act.  

            “H.R. 348 has many flaws.  Most critically, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis that currently is required under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. 

            “By giving the proponents of construction projects greater control over the environmental approval process, this bill is the equivalent of giving Wall Street the authority to write its own regulations for financial responsibility.

“The bill accomplishes this result in several respects.

            “To begin with, H.R. 348 – under the guise of streamlining the approval process – forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state, and local agencies as well as from members of the public to comment on environmentally-sensitive construction projects that are federally-funded or that require federal approval.

            “The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances.

            “Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved, regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed risks.

           

“As a result, H.R. 348 could allow projects that put public health and safety at risk to be approved before the safety review is completed.   

            “This failing of the bill, along with many others, explains why the Administration and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, along with more than 40 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this legislation.

            “These organizations include Public Citizen, the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.

            “Likewise, the Administration issued a strong veto threat.  Stating that the bill will “increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines,” the Administration warns that if H.R. 348 became law, it “would lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth.”        

           

“Another concern that I have with this bill – like other measures that we have considered – is that it is a flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem.  And, that is not just my opinion. 

            “The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, for instance, states that highway construction project delays based on environmental requirements stem not from the National Environmental Policy Act, but from ‘laws other than NEPA.’ 

            “In fact, CRS found that the primary source of approval delays for these projects ‘are more often tied to local/state and project-specific factors, primarily local/state agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.’ 

            “Undoubtedly, the so-called RAPID Act will make the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety.

            “My final major concern with this bill is that – rather than streamlining the environmental review process – it will sow utter confusion. 

            “H.R. 348 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects, which will cause confusion, delay, and litigation.

            “As I noted at the outset, the changes to the  National Environmental Policy Act’s review process as contemplated by H.R. 348 apply only to certain construction projects.

            “The National Environmental Policy Act, on the other hand, applies to a broad panoply of federal actions, including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans, Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties. 

           

“As a result of the bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project.  For instance, the bill’s requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and storage of its spent fuel.

            “Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation.

            “But, more importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections.   

           

            “As with all the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do.  I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill and reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Radical Deregulation Won't Bring Real Growth

By John Conyers, Jr.

Dean of the U.S. House of
Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Throughout the 1920s, Congress was focused on slashing taxes on the wealthy and eliminating business regulations, arguing that a free market could govern itself and that a rising tide would lift all boats.

The results were devastating: Wall Street ran amuck, resulting in the 1929 stock market crash. Wealth became highly concentrated at the top, leaving everyday consumers with too few resources to fuel a meaningful post-crash recovery. Industrial pollution began accelerating, setting the stage for an era of smog and even flammable rivers.

Fast-forward 90 years, and you'll wonder: Why haven't we learned our lesson?

Today -- with majorities they've touted as their largest since the 1920s -- congressional Republicans are pushing the most aggressive deregulatory agenda in nearly a century. My colleagues in Congress should look to both history and to current affairs to learn a simple lesson: Smart regulation is not only necessary for society but can be good for growth.

This is something our constituents inherently understand -- with 70 percent of the general public supporting rules to protect our climate from greenhouse gases, including 56 percent of Republicans. They trust in the power of markets to deliver solutions when regulations properly incentivize reform.

House Republicans' headline bill for this week -- the deceivingly named Regulatory Accountability Act ("RAA") -- exemplifies the wrong-headed approach of the 1920s. The RAA (H.R. 185) would require that all laws implemented through federal regulations be implemented in the weakest and cheapest manner possible with maximum input from industry. The bill would decrease the effectiveness of our landmark environmental protections, create delays that are costly to both consumers and good corporate citizens, and derail many of our most dynamic domestic industries. This is to say nothing of the bill's awful impacts on workplace safety, financial protections, and consumer product safety
.

The laissez-faire environmental standards of the 1920s remained largely in place for decades until people could no longer afford to avert their eyes. In 1969 -- the same year of the famous Cuyahoga River fire -- the Rouge River in my own hometown also caught fire. These fires and others in several major cities across the country were a direct consequence of the failure to regulate the use of freshwater systems as sewers, harbors, and dumps. While it's troubling that it took such a conspicuous fiery accident to generate action, Congress finally came to its senses and adopted a smart regulatory response -- the Clean Water Act -- in 1972. Two years later, we passed the bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act. Both were signed by Republican Presidents.

But the decades of neglect and abuse could not be cleaned up overnight. Thirteen years after the Clean Water Act was passed, a young man died of a rare waterborne disease after falling in the Rouge River and ingesting a mouthful of water. Now, 30 years after his death the Rouge River Basin is in vastly better condition, but it's still recovering -- in spite of decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

H.R. 185 could erase those decades of environmental progress by forcing agencies and courts to defer to the environmental regulations found in nations like China -- where air pollution cuts life expectancy by five years in the north of the country and 16,000 dead pigs recently filled one Shanghai River. These environmental hazards have direct economic consequences -- easily measured in the responses of the two-thirds of wealthy Chinese who have left China or a planning to do so.

So much money, time, and effort could have been saved with regulations that preempt or quickly address environmental impacts. Unfortunately, too many people want to govern by crisis -- acting only when they are forced to by a catastrophe like a flaming river. This is of course a natural inclination -- we all from time to time refuse to do more than the bare minimum. The GOP's bill this week exemplifies this sort of short-sighted thinking, preferring a pound of cure to an ounce of prevention.

The US public is paying for regulatory inaction with their lives, their health, and ultimately their taxes when the consequences become so egregiously apparent that Congress finally acts. The GOP's 1920s-style deregulation, including bills like H.R. 185, threatens our economy by reducing businesses' expected consequences when they take shortcuts and shirk responsibilities, instead placing the burden on citizens who pay for cancer treatment, and waterway clean-up, and other costs that the polluters should have picked up.

The GOP deregulation agenda also places good corporate citizens at a competitive disadvantage to the greedy and unethical. Every time the good corporate players clean up their mess, source responsible raw materials, and refuse to pass the buck, they fall behind the companies that cut corners to maximize profits. Many of those good guys are eventually forced to play dirty too, or they go out of business.

H.R. 185 and the GOP's broader deregulatory agenda aren't pro-business -- they're pro-bad business. They reward antiquated business models and intransigent managers. As Harvard Business School management guru Michael Porter hasdemonstrated, US firms have shown again and again that they can and will respond with hard work and innovation when regulations offer them flexibility and a fair playing field. Consider how increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have empowered Motor City to develop cleaner manufacturing processes, build aluminum F-150s, and develop a $30,000 plug-in hybrid that can drive from Detroit to Lansing on a single gallon of gas. Crucially in a global marketplace, adopting energy-efficiency and consumer safety standards ahead of foreign competitors secures an important first-mover advantage. Any company that can make it in a free market isn't going out of business because they -- and their competitors -- have to reduce ozone emissions or prevent fracking fluids from entering aquifers.

Smart environmental regulations are both good ethics and good economics.

The GOP deregulation agenda is about shifting the burden of responsibility from businesses to taxpayers. It's about shamefully low expectations for US industry. In short, it's about a return to the 1920s economic model that yielded unprecedented inequality, mass pollution, and the worst financial crisis of the 20th century.

H.R. 185 is just the beginning. In the months ahead, congressional Republicans will continue to build on their recent actions to approve the Keystone Pipeline (the perfect economic strategy for an aspiring Russian-style Petro-State) and to deregulate Wall Street derivatives (the recipe for an automatic taxpayer bailout for the riskiest gambling). Let's stand up for the lessons of history and defend the prudent role of government.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Rogers' support of Keystone XL is about fear mongering; disregard for environment

01/19/12- Rogers' support of Keystone XL is about fear mongering; disregard for environment

LANSING-- Democratic candidate for the 8th Congressional District Lance Enderle today slammed Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Brighton) for his support of the ill-fated Canadian Keystone XL pipeline project.
The project would have traversed 1,200 miles of American soil, often in environmentally sensitive areas including a major aquifer, to transport tar sands oil from Canada to Texas. The oil in question is environmentally dangerous to remove from the earth, requiring massive amounts of water, steam and heat to remove, and must be mixed with other, lighter oil products to be transported under high pressure in pipelines. The oil is also tainted with toxic heavy metals like mercury.
The Obama administration on Wednesday announced it would reject the proposal for the pipeline. The move has been heavily criticized by Republicans, including GOP Rep. Tim Walberg, who represents Michigan's 7th which suffered thelargest environmental disaster in midwest history in July of 2010. At that time, the Enbridge Energy Partners Lakehead Pipeline 6B burst open spewing an estimated 1.1 million gallons of toxic tar sands oil and the petroleum "diluent" into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Cleanup continues from the spill, with the company and the EPA having trouble removing a heavy tar-like substance left behind from the spill which is now covering acres of the bottom of the river.
On his Facebook page, Rogers called the Obama administration decision "short-sighted," claiming the move will "force" Canada to sell it's toxic oils sands product to China, and enrich Iran in the process.
"Evidently, Mike has no clue about the internal politics of Canada," said Enderle. "The First Nations of Canada have been very clear -- they won't allow pipelines to traverse their tribal lands, which would be necessary to fill tankers on the Pacific coast to tank over to China. And why do they oppose this? Because they know what residents of Calhoun County discovered in 2010 -- oil sands oil is toxic, dangerous and nearly impossible to remove from the environment."
"To claim that somehow Iran will ultimately be the beneficiary of Canadian oil to China is ridiculous on its face," Enderle continued. "China is currently getting oil from Iran, and getting more oil from Canada will simply reduce the demand for Iranian oil, reducing Iranian oil money. Mike is scare mongering."
"And all those jobs Mike is talking about? How many of them are 'indirect' jobs created by toxic, life-changing spills caused by improper handling of this toxic goo?" Enderle asked. "Yes we need jobs, but more jobs produced by scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel of oil production helps no one, and makes the U.S. put off the important job of leading the world into the development of renewable energy sources which do not cause environmental catastrophes.”