Menu
header photo

4Earth®

The Truth, Shall Set You Free.

SHUT IT DOWN AND BUILD IT UP!

Well, every member of Congress gets paid during a shutdown. However, let's do some quick math. So let's take the average federal employee salary: The high is $115,594 in DC and the low is $63,148.87, so let just use $89,372.00 as our average, with 261 work days in 2018, so that's $342.42 a day. Now there are 2.1 million federal workers nationwide, approximately 800,000 are expected to be affected by the shutdown. There are 420,000 federal employees deemed “essential.” So, right now the Federal government is running on 420,000 employees. Let's look at the 800,000. At $342.42 a day in earnings that comes to $273,936,000 a day we are saving our government and so far, after only 13 days we have saved $3,561,168,000! That's only $1,438,832,000 away from getting our wall, or SIX MORE DAYS!
 
As with every Government shut-down, it becomes painfully obvious that our government is BLOATED with unessential employees. I talked to someone the other day and they had no idea that the government was shut down. Really, why do we need over 2 MILLION government employees? What do they really do and why do we need ALL of them?
 
 
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer

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

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 trunk load of batteries! Lithium must be mined and in great quantities to supply enough batteries to maintain and store all that energy that move those "clean" "Green" cars. Talk about Raping the land!
I few years back, our local electric company would send me a guilt letter showing that our house used 10 times more electricity then 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 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 following California’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to ban all 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 that 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 them 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 quicker off 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.

 

The Welfare Plantation


Prior to the 1960's, 80% of black families had a 2 parent support system. The black family was thriving and not dependant upon the Government for their care. So what happened and why are we so conditioned to resort to the Slavery rhetoric when it comes to the poor black communities? President Johnson initiated a program called "The War On Poverty" and part of this so-called "war" was designed to make sure that fathers were not in the household for mothers to obtain Government assistance.
This was the beginning of the complete collapse of the low-income family. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery of the past, but everything to do with the American Welfare Plantation!
 
As we hurtle towards the 2018 mid-term elections we are witnessing a multitude of black people breaking the chains that have held them captive on the Welfare Plantation since the 1960's. But how did they even get there to begin with? How did so many gain their freedom to then become lulled back into slavery? Let's start with the realities and racism of our President at the time, Lyndon B Johnson. "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again." He was also famous for saying, "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." Johnson had a very precise plan and so far it has been working. All he had to do was to undereducated the black community, get rid of fathers and control their food and health care.
 
Although Lyndon Johnson, championed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signed it into law, it was well known that he was a racist. Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson referred to it as the “nigger bill” to his political colleagues. After appointing Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he is reported as saying, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.” So let's put all the rhetoric away and just call Johnson what he was--A RACIST! And he had NO INTENTIONS of helping the black communities. In reality, he was hell-bent on destroying them! The "War on Poverty" campaign was the ticket to do just that, and it worked!
According to "Project 21" (a leading voice for Black Conservatives) Spokesman, Derryck Green, “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on the government to sustain livelihoods.”
 
Regan knew this was disastrous for the black communities, "We waged war on Poverty and poverty won." But really did nothing to stop it. President George H.W. Bush, in the 1992 State of the Union Address, pointed out: 'Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle; it was never meant to be a habit; it was never supposed to be passed on from generation to generation like a legacy.' Bush’s comment echoed a statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, long before the War on Poverty even began, warned government assistance could be like a 'narcotic.'"
 
And the terrible irony is that even the people in the poor black communities in the 70's knew how devastating it was to be back on the Plantation...they saw their children and grandchildren ignorantly slip their chains on as they became slaves to Welfare for decades and they were powerless to stop it. This was very calculated and by no means was an attempt to "help" to the poor, especially the black poor. By its design, the welfare system was meant to discourage fathers from being in the home and in essence encouraging single motherhood and multiple children. The government was extremely strict on their law--NO FATHERS ALLOWED to receive assistance. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing and understood how quickly they could put the poor blacks back into chains.
 
And now, we are here in 2018 and it appears that a very large number of black people are starting to speak out against their slave masters, AKA the Democratic Party and are shedding their chains and walking away from the Plantation. Just as it was before, they are going to leave penniless into their country without the slavemaster talking care of them. But they will find that they can forge their way, they can find success, the plantation ghettoes will no longer be their home.
FATHERS, WELCOME HOME! Now go rebuild your communities!
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.
 
 

Sexual De-Evolution. The End of the Revolution!

It seems that the Sexual Revolution that began in the 60's has escalated in our current era where men and women are equal has backfired miserably! Now, now Feminist, Liberal woman, you can't have it both ways...you can't insist that men have morals and values towards women if this is not taught to them. And you also know that it must be taught because instinctively men are sexual hounds. Being moral is not instinctive to anyone, especially men. You, liberal, Feminist's are of a mindset that there should be NO rules when it comes to sex...you want the government out of your bedroom and far away from your bodies. You want equal pay and equal treatment and you LOVE to talk about your vagina's! You stand in the streets, NAKED and scream in protest against our President, you wear your pussy hats and costumes that realistically resemble your genitalia. You want free contraceptives and have pushed a sexual agenda to our elementary aged children in their schools. You encourage gay men to parade in the streets, publically exposing their penis's to onlookers, including children.  YOU ARE THE FULFILMENT of the Sexual Revolution your mothers began in this country. YOU ARE ALL ABOUT SEX and yet you insist that men, who you claim equality to should have morals and values when it comes to anything sexual. Here is the reality you Liberal Feminist women, without someone teaching men morals and values, you will be raising men, who by simple biological instinct want to hump anything that has legs. This is YOUR CULTURE, what YOU have created. If you insist equality with men, then you just better figure out how to have the same genetic sexual drive as men because morals and values are NOT written in your handbook.  It's time you actually begin to keep up with a man's superior sex drive if you insist on being equal in all areas!  

So please stop crying about men exposing themselves to you, while you walk around wearing your vagina's, stop saying that men should have restraint when a woman wears a mini skirt and a shirt with her boobs hanging out or gets drunk at a party and intensely flirts with a man. Why should men have any sort of restraint when women can't? Because without any morals or values being taught to either gender all you have are animal instincts and animal instincts are all about sex.  Why is it that men are the only ones held to a higher standard? Why is it that only men have to constantly control their genetic instinct under great temptation? While women can dress like prostitutes--yes prostitutes dress to get picked up; the sexier and more revealing of the goods the better! Women can get "off their feet" drunk at parties--now I have seen many drunk women in my day and they have ZERO inhibitions...and yet it is up to the men, yes even the drunk ones to show restraint.  What this says to me is that MEN are considered to be more responsible, more resistant to temptation and obviously SMARTER than women! And YOU, you idiotic, liberal Feminists have certainly proved this. So stick that in your vagina costume and smoke it!

Daniella Cross is the keeper of 4Earth.com and the featured writer

 

DEATH BY NUMBERS!

The period of time in and around WWll was so devastating in terms of life 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.
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

The Tariff Slave Trade


I believe the major issue here is that most people don't understand what a tariff is. Moreover, they have absolutely NO CLUE as to what a Trade surplus or a Trade deficit is.
A tariff, simply put, is a tax placed on an imported good. For instance, theoretically, when a country such as Germany or China sends their cars here to be sold, a reasonable and fair tax or tariff is placed on that vehicle. These taxes are not anything new and as a matter of fact, prior to 1913, the U.S. government raised most of its revenue from tariffs. That's right, this is how our railroads were built, roads, bridges and the very basic infrastructure of our country. We didn't have income tax back then! GASP!
 
The main reason for tariffs was to protect our economy from countries that used cheap or slave labor to send goods to our country and compete with our National goods and production. This holds true for all countries that impose a tariff. The civil war had its roots steeped in this ideology...it wasn't simply about freeing the slaves. It was also an economic war. The Democrats really didn't want to give up their FREE LABORERS as they sold their cotton and produce to the North making huge profits. The North, on the other hand, was experiencing European immigrants flooding in that needed work and money. The economic scales were tipped to the South with free labor, cheap land and an abundance of profit. However, as sweet as that story sounds, the reality was that the South was being exploited with High Tariff's, while the North was actually benefitting...the South was being hit hard with tariffs and the North was making the profits. Revisionist history has just about wiped all these facts, and it was all about tariffs! Learn more about what really caused the civil war here: http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 
Ok, back to the issue at hand. Do Tariff's make imported items more expensive to us in the US? Well, we can look at it this way. Did Walmart put many small, local business out of business? Yes, they certainly did! It's really the same concept. Same goes for HomeDepot and Lowes and other big conglomerates. When I was younger, I don't remember my parents complaining about the price of the local Agway feed store, and I never had issues with the prices at our local hardware store here in CDA--Ernst...as a matter of fact I miss that store. But because the US doesn't charge places like China and Japan a realistic and fair (to the US) tariff, they can send cheap products here and we quickly forget about the little local stores we all patronized. And, we not only grew accustomed to these less expensive products, we also got used to the inferiority! "Cheap Chinese crap!" We have all muttered that under our breath when something we own breaks. We are now a disposable society.
 
And if we are talking about one thing we export a lot of, it's cars. Cars being shipped from the U.S. into Europe face a 10 percent import duty while European cars into the U.S. faced a 2.5 percent import duty. So that means that people in Europe are more likely to buy a German vehicle because the 10% tariff we have to pay, increases the cost of that car. Oh, but have you ever wondered why you can pick up an Asian vehicle so much cheaper than a Ford, Dodge, or a GM vehicle? A car imported to the United States from China faces a Tariff of 2.5%, while a car is sent to China from the United States, the Tariff is 25%! If China had to pay 25% to export its cars to the US, then, well, obviously they won't be a dirt cheap as they are now! And maybe there wouldn't be so many stupid Subaru drivers, putting around like grannies, clogging up our roads.
 
So, in a nutshell, a trade deficit (losing money) occurs when people demand cheap, inferior products at discount price from places like China and Japan and don't buy locally--in their own country and when, as is occurring to the US and has since the 1970's, our products are being overtaxed in tariff's from other countries, therefore making them more of a luxury item, instead of an everyday item. It's difficult to make money when an export tax is beyond reasonable. A surplus is the exact opposite...when our exports exceed our imports; when people demand American made products because they are quality made and affordable to foreign countries, we will export more with fair and reasonable tariffs.
 
Now, if the playing field on tariffs becomes equal, because...equality and all, then the prices of goods imported here will either go up, if we drastically increase the tariff on other countries imported products, or stay the same if those countries lower our outrageously high tariff's the US pays to export to their country. Either way, we're not picking cotton anymore!


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

The Undoing of Unity With The Demon of Diversity!

For the last several decades the word, DIVERSITY echoes through the hills and valleys of our concrete jungles.  We are told over and over again that diversity is a good thing for our communities.  We are shamed if our cities and towns and the smallest of Hamlets are not intermixed with a variety of colors, shapes, religions and political leanings.  God forbid a community that can exist with likeness...  I decided to do a search on the word, Diversity to see how it had changed over the years to fit the political agenda we see now being thrust upon us.  So, obviously, I went to my very Old, Webster dictionary that mainly collects dust on my shelf.  It's a first edition (1828) and actually has the real meanings of words gone by.  

DIVERSITYnoun [Latin]

1. Difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness. There may be diversity without contrariety. There is a great diversity in human constitutions.

2. Variety; as a diversity of ceremonies in churches.

3. Distinct being, as opposed to identity.

4. Variegation.

Then to the newest edition of Websters, just to see how much the meaning of the word had changed and the political and ethnic spin it may have garnered.  So, I type in the word, Diversity and Webster def. and I am immediately and firstly given the Plural:
 

Definition of diversity

plural diversities
1the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 
: varietyespecially 
: the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization 
  • programs intended to promote
  • diversity in schools
2an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities 
: an instance of being diverse 
  • diversity of opinion

 

  •  
  •  


 

 

 

ANTI-CHRISTIAN Huffington Post writer Discriminates against Chick-Fil-A


After reading this Commentary by the Huffington Post, I came away with several questions.  The first was the constant statement that Chick-Fil-A donates to "Anti-Gay" organizations-->"Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was by donating millions of dollars each year to anti-LGBTQ organizations via its Winshape nonprofit organization."  I saw this statement several times in this piece.  What exactly is an Anti-Gay organization?  Do these people go around and bop gays on the head?  Do they have a mission to campaign to slander gay people at every turn?  Do they want gay people dead?  Are they like those who hate Trump and profane him on a daily basis even to the point of killing him?  So, with these many questions in mind, I decided to click the link Huffington Post so graciously provided to see what vile, evil organizations Chick-Fil-A was donating to.  "Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009"  Here is the list:
Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

WOW, just look at those organizations!  They appear to be, um, Christian Organizations!  SHOCKING that a Christian owned company would support other Christian organizations!  I just don't know what to make of this revelation!  Although, I think it is safe to assume that Planned Parenthood, Family Equality Council, The GLBT National Help Center, Human Rights Campaign, Parents, Family & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, etc.  DONATE TO AND SUPPORT, ANTI-CHRISTIAN Organizations. See what I did there?  I have a feeling these Orgs also support ANTI-REPUBLICAN as well as ANTI-TRUMP organizations.  Where is the outrage?  How dare these gay people support organizations that support the LGBTQ community!  Why in the world would they do that?   Hmmmm, let me think on that one.  I also searched out the context behind the author's comment:  "Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was..."  Has the founder and owner of Chick-Fil-A made "vile" comments against the LGBTQ community?  Not that I have found.  However, it seems by simply stating your religious belief's regarding the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman is considered vile.  I suppose when Obama was running for President he should have kept his VILE mouth shut because he said the same thing and then changed his stance.  HA, weird!  Oh but wait there is this; "Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."  Guess who held THIS religious and moral conviction and stated it in 2000 and 2013?  Hillary Clinton!  Interesting how our past President and President wanna-be were so quick to drop their VILE convictions.  I am sure the Huffington Post condemned those 2 for their despicable convictions and stance (at the time) on straight marriage.  Right?  

My second thought after reading this Huffington Post piece was this; Could the author of this commentary, Noah Michelson be sued and forced to take tolerance and reprogramming classes because he refuses to spend his money, support and eat at Chick-Fil-A?  Could the Huffington Post be sued for allowing one of its writers to espouse such discrimination and bigotry towards a Christian company?  Refusing to spend one's money somewhere due to the company's religious beliefs is total discrimination!  This man should be FORCED to eat at Chick-Fil-A or suffer the consequences of being publicly humiliated for being a discriminating, intolerant, bigot... RIGHT?  

Daniella Cross is the Caretaker of 4Earth.com and featured writer

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

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? 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.


   

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 lefters 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 the 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 as to 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
 
 

 

SLAVERY HAS ENDED AND NOW YOU CAN FINALLY GO HOME!

 
I think a little reality check is in order. Let examine America. This country is 242 years old. We have the longest surviving Constitutional Republic in history. And we are a pretty amazing country that people come to in droves for hopes of a better life! Prior to Europeans coming to this land, and long before what we now know as Native Americans, were people from East Asia. They then evolved into all the various Native tribes we now. However, these people had their share of bloody wars to gain land and territory and the Sioux tribe was the fiercest and most vicious and victorious, killing and plundering other tribes for their land. The acquisition of land is not a new concept reserved for the American settlers. If you know your history, you will have a concept of why the Crusades were fought. And for those of you with a short-term memory, perhaps WWll will suffice to explain the taking over of land or at least the attempts to. Thankfully we have become a more civilized people and are not seeing many countries or groups trying to seize countries or land by force. Well except for our Federal Government and the South Africans, but that is a Liberal discussion for another time. Moreover, I am not seeing liberal teachers heading out to the Indian (yes I said it) reservation and taking home a family and giving them their home and land in reparations for the "sins" of their forefathers.
 
I also haven't seen the descendants of the black people who owned slaves doing anything for the descendants of the slaves they owned. Why is that? Why don't people talk about the black slave owners in our history? I found this interesting tidbit: "The most solid data we found was published in an article in the Root by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard University historian. Gates cited research by Carter G. Woodson, an African-American historian who died in 1950. He found that in 1830, a total of "3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. With three more decades of population growth, it’s plausible that the number of black-owned slaves could have grown to 20,000 by 1860, historians told us."
 
Speaking of Africa and slaves...Slavery is still rampant in Africa and weirdly it is not the white man enslaving these men, women, and children! Just like it wasn't the white men who rounded up these poor Africans and shipped them ALL OVER THE WORLD as slaves! IT WAS DARK SKINNED MEN. Yes, in 2018, in AFRICA, slavery is alive and a bustling business. But what really chaps my hide are these teachers and those black liberals that complain and cry and whine that their ancestors were TAKEN to the United States by force...."They had NO CHOICE!" Be that as it may, but Dorothy, guess what, you can click your heels and go home now! You and your ancestors have not been slaves for a long time now, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE YEARS TO BE EXACT! YOU ARE NOT SLAVES HERE ANYMORE---wake up from your delusion! So, why aren't these upset Liberals moving back to their homeland if they are so displeased with America? After all, you won't be the minority there, the WHITE person will. You will be in AFRICA--the motherland and you will be treated fairly and there is no racism there.
 
It is interesting that right before and directly after WWll hundreds of thousands of Jews returned to their homeland, Israel. Most of these people after the war had nothing, but managed to get back to their homeland...to a place the majority had never been to before! So, why haven't we seen a mass exodus of black people returning to their homeland where they can reclaim their roots and heritage? I do believe this is an honest question and one that seems taboo to even speak of. And I would like an intellectually honest answer. I have many black friends and I would be sad to see them leave, but I would never get in their way of going back to a place that they felt they were STOLEN away from. I would certainly think that after a century and a half, those who had anger issues about living in the United States against their will, well, at least against the will's of their great great great grandparents, would gladly move back to their ancestral home instead of complaining about living in the greatest country on earth!




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


 
 
 

View older posts »

SHUT IT DOWN AND BUILD IT UP!

Well, every member of Congress gets paid during a shutdown. However, let's do some quick math. So let's take the average federal employee salary: The high is $115,594 in DC and the low is $63,148.87, so let just use $89,372.00 as our average, with 261 work days in 2018, so that's $342.42 a day. Now there are 2.1 million federal workers nationwide, approximately 800,000 are expected to be affected by the shutdown. There are 420,000 federal employees deemed “essential.” So, right now the Federal government is running on 420,000 employees. Let's look at the 800,000. At $342.42 a day in earnings that comes to $273,936,000 a day we are saving our government and so far, after only 13 days we have saved $3,561,168,000! That's only $1,438,832,000 away from getting our wall, or SIX MORE DAYS!
 
As with every Government shut-down, it becomes painfully obvious that our government is BLOATED with unessential employees. I talked to someone the other day and they had no idea that the government was shut down. Really, why do we need over 2 MILLION government employees? What do they really do and why do we need ALL of them?
 
 
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer

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

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 trunk load of batteries! Lithium must be mined and in great quantities to supply enough batteries to maintain and store all that energy that move those "clean" "Green" cars. Talk about Raping the land!
I few years back, our local electric company would send me a guilt letter showing that our house used 10 times more electricity then 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 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 following California’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to ban all 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 that 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 them 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 quicker off 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.

 

The Welfare Plantation


Prior to the 1960's, 80% of black families had a 2 parent support system. The black family was thriving and not dependant upon the Government for their care. So what happened and why are we so conditioned to resort to the Slavery rhetoric when it comes to the poor black communities? President Johnson initiated a program called "The War On Poverty" and part of this so-called "war" was designed to make sure that fathers were not in the household for mothers to obtain Government assistance.
This was the beginning of the complete collapse of the low-income family. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery of the past, but everything to do with the American Welfare Plantation!
 
As we hurtle towards the 2018 mid-term elections we are witnessing a multitude of black people breaking the chains that have held them captive on the Welfare Plantation since the 1960's. But how did they even get there to begin with? How did so many gain their freedom to then become lulled back into slavery? Let's start with the realities and racism of our President at the time, Lyndon B Johnson. "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again." He was also famous for saying, "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." Johnson had a very precise plan and so far it has been working. All he had to do was to undereducated the black community, get rid of fathers and control their food and health care.
 
Although Lyndon Johnson, championed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signed it into law, it was well known that he was a racist. Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson referred to it as the “nigger bill” to his political colleagues. After appointing Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he is reported as saying, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.” So let's put all the rhetoric away and just call Johnson what he was--A RACIST! And he had NO INTENTIONS of helping the black communities. In reality, he was hell-bent on destroying them! The "War on Poverty" campaign was the ticket to do just that, and it worked!
According to "Project 21" (a leading voice for Black Conservatives) Spokesman, Derryck Green, “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on the government to sustain livelihoods.”
 
Regan knew this was disastrous for the black communities, "We waged war on Poverty and poverty won." But really did nothing to stop it. President George H.W. Bush, in the 1992 State of the Union Address, pointed out: 'Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle; it was never meant to be a habit; it was never supposed to be passed on from generation to generation like a legacy.' Bush’s comment echoed a statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, long before the War on Poverty even began, warned government assistance could be like a 'narcotic.'"
 
And the terrible irony is that even the people in the poor black communities in the 70's knew how devastating it was to be back on the Plantation...they saw their children and grandchildren ignorantly slip their chains on as they became slaves to Welfare for decades and they were powerless to stop it. This was very calculated and by no means was an attempt to "help" to the poor, especially the black poor. By its design, the welfare system was meant to discourage fathers from being in the home and in essence encouraging single motherhood and multiple children. The government was extremely strict on their law--NO FATHERS ALLOWED to receive assistance. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing and understood how quickly they could put the poor blacks back into chains.
 
And now, we are here in 2018 and it appears that a very large number of black people are starting to speak out against their slave masters, AKA the Democratic Party and are shedding their chains and walking away from the Plantation. Just as it was before, they are going to leave penniless into their country without the slavemaster talking care of them. But they will find that they can forge their way, they can find success, the plantation ghettoes will no longer be their home.
FATHERS, WELCOME HOME! Now go rebuild your communities!
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.
 
 

Sexual De-Evolution. The End of the Revolution!

It seems that the Sexual Revolution that began in the 60's has escalated in our current era where men and women are equal has backfired miserably! Now, now Feminist, Liberal woman, you can't have it both ways...you can't insist that men have morals and values towards women if this is not taught to them. And you also know that it must be taught because instinctively men are sexual hounds. Being moral is not instinctive to anyone, especially men. You, liberal, Feminist's are of a mindset that there should be NO rules when it comes to sex...you want the government out of your bedroom and far away from your bodies. You want equal pay and equal treatment and you LOVE to talk about your vagina's! You stand in the streets, NAKED and scream in protest against our President, you wear your pussy hats and costumes that realistically resemble your genitalia. You want free contraceptives and have pushed a sexual agenda to our elementary aged children in their schools. You encourage gay men to parade in the streets, publically exposing their penis's to onlookers, including children.  YOU ARE THE FULFILMENT of the Sexual Revolution your mothers began in this country. YOU ARE ALL ABOUT SEX and yet you insist that men, who you claim equality to should have morals and values when it comes to anything sexual. Here is the reality you Liberal Feminist women, without someone teaching men morals and values, you will be raising men, who by simple biological instinct want to hump anything that has legs. This is YOUR CULTURE, what YOU have created. If you insist equality with men, then you just better figure out how to have the same genetic sexual drive as men because morals and values are NOT written in your handbook.  It's time you actually begin to keep up with a man's superior sex drive if you insist on being equal in all areas!  

So please stop crying about men exposing themselves to you, while you walk around wearing your vagina's, stop saying that men should have restraint when a woman wears a mini skirt and a shirt with her boobs hanging out or gets drunk at a party and intensely flirts with a man. Why should men have any sort of restraint when women can't? Because without any morals or values being taught to either gender all you have are animal instincts and animal instincts are all about sex.  Why is it that men are the only ones held to a higher standard? Why is it that only men have to constantly control their genetic instinct under great temptation? While women can dress like prostitutes--yes prostitutes dress to get picked up; the sexier and more revealing of the goods the better! Women can get "off their feet" drunk at parties--now I have seen many drunk women in my day and they have ZERO inhibitions...and yet it is up to the men, yes even the drunk ones to show restraint.  What this says to me is that MEN are considered to be more responsible, more resistant to temptation and obviously SMARTER than women! And YOU, you idiotic, liberal Feminists have certainly proved this. So stick that in your vagina costume and smoke it!

Daniella Cross is the keeper of 4Earth.com and the featured writer

 

DEATH BY NUMBERS!

The period of time in and around WWll was so devastating in terms of life 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.
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

The Tariff Slave Trade


I believe the major issue here is that most people don't understand what a tariff is. Moreover, they have absolutely NO CLUE as to what a Trade surplus or a Trade deficit is.
A tariff, simply put, is a tax placed on an imported good. For instance, theoretically, when a country such as Germany or China sends their cars here to be sold, a reasonable and fair tax or tariff is placed on that vehicle. These taxes are not anything new and as a matter of fact, prior to 1913, the U.S. government raised most of its revenue from tariffs. That's right, this is how our railroads were built, roads, bridges and the very basic infrastructure of our country. We didn't have income tax back then! GASP!
 
The main reason for tariffs was to protect our economy from countries that used cheap or slave labor to send goods to our country and compete with our National goods and production. This holds true for all countries that impose a tariff. The civil war had its roots steeped in this ideology...it wasn't simply about freeing the slaves. It was also an economic war. The Democrats really didn't want to give up their FREE LABORERS as they sold their cotton and produce to the North making huge profits. The North, on the other hand, was experiencing European immigrants flooding in that needed work and money. The economic scales were tipped to the South with free labor, cheap land and an abundance of profit. However, as sweet as that story sounds, the reality was that the South was being exploited with High Tariff's, while the North was actually benefitting...the South was being hit hard with tariffs and the North was making the profits. Revisionist history has just about wiped all these facts, and it was all about tariffs! Learn more about what really caused the civil war here: http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 
Ok, back to the issue at hand. Do Tariff's make imported items more expensive to us in the US? Well, we can look at it this way. Did Walmart put many small, local business out of business? Yes, they certainly did! It's really the same concept. Same goes for HomeDepot and Lowes and other big conglomerates. When I was younger, I don't remember my parents complaining about the price of the local Agway feed store, and I never had issues with the prices at our local hardware store here in CDA--Ernst...as a matter of fact I miss that store. But because the US doesn't charge places like China and Japan a realistic and fair (to the US) tariff, they can send cheap products here and we quickly forget about the little local stores we all patronized. And, we not only grew accustomed to these less expensive products, we also got used to the inferiority! "Cheap Chinese crap!" We have all muttered that under our breath when something we own breaks. We are now a disposable society.
 
And if we are talking about one thing we export a lot of, it's cars. Cars being shipped from the U.S. into Europe face a 10 percent import duty while European cars into the U.S. faced a 2.5 percent import duty. So that means that people in Europe are more likely to buy a German vehicle because the 10% tariff we have to pay, increases the cost of that car. Oh, but have you ever wondered why you can pick up an Asian vehicle so much cheaper than a Ford, Dodge, or a GM vehicle? A car imported to the United States from China faces a Tariff of 2.5%, while a car is sent to China from the United States, the Tariff is 25%! If China had to pay 25% to export its cars to the US, then, well, obviously they won't be a dirt cheap as they are now! And maybe there wouldn't be so many stupid Subaru drivers, putting around like grannies, clogging up our roads.
 
So, in a nutshell, a trade deficit (losing money) occurs when people demand cheap, inferior products at discount price from places like China and Japan and don't buy locally--in their own country and when, as is occurring to the US and has since the 1970's, our products are being overtaxed in tariff's from other countries, therefore making them more of a luxury item, instead of an everyday item. It's difficult to make money when an export tax is beyond reasonable. A surplus is the exact opposite...when our exports exceed our imports; when people demand American made products because they are quality made and affordable to foreign countries, we will export more with fair and reasonable tariffs.
 
Now, if the playing field on tariffs becomes equal, because...equality and all, then the prices of goods imported here will either go up, if we drastically increase the tariff on other countries imported products, or stay the same if those countries lower our outrageously high tariff's the US pays to export to their country. Either way, we're not picking cotton anymore!


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

The Undoing of Unity With The Demon of Diversity!

For the last several decades the word, DIVERSITY echoes through the hills and valleys of our concrete jungles.  We are told over and over again that diversity is a good thing for our communities.  We are shamed if our cities and towns and the smallest of Hamlets are not intermixed with a variety of colors, shapes, religions and political leanings.  God forbid a community that can exist with likeness...  I decided to do a search on the word, Diversity to see how it had changed over the years to fit the political agenda we see now being thrust upon us.  So, obviously, I went to my very Old, Webster dictionary that mainly collects dust on my shelf.  It's a first edition (1828) and actually has the real meanings of words gone by.  

DIVERSITYnoun [Latin]

1. Difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness. There may be diversity without contrariety. There is a great diversity in human constitutions.

2. Variety; as a diversity of ceremonies in churches.

3. Distinct being, as opposed to identity.

4. Variegation.

Then to the newest edition of Websters, just to see how much the meaning of the word had changed and the political and ethnic spin it may have garnered.  So, I type in the word, Diversity and Webster def. and I am immediately and firstly given the Plural:
 

Definition of diversity

plural diversities
1the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 
: varietyespecially 
: the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization 
  • programs intended to promote
  • diversity in schools
2an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities 
: an instance of being diverse 
  • diversity of opinion

 

  •  
  •  


 

 

 

ANTI-CHRISTIAN Huffington Post writer Discriminates against Chick-Fil-A


After reading this Commentary by the Huffington Post, I came away with several questions.  The first was the constant statement that Chick-Fil-A donates to "Anti-Gay" organizations-->"Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was by donating millions of dollars each year to anti-LGBTQ organizations via its Winshape nonprofit organization."  I saw this statement several times in this piece.  What exactly is an Anti-Gay organization?  Do these people go around and bop gays on the head?  Do they have a mission to campaign to slander gay people at every turn?  Do they want gay people dead?  Are they like those who hate Trump and profane him on a daily basis even to the point of killing him?  So, with these many questions in mind, I decided to click the link Huffington Post so graciously provided to see what vile, evil organizations Chick-Fil-A was donating to.  "Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009"  Here is the list:
Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

WOW, just look at those organizations!  They appear to be, um, Christian Organizations!  SHOCKING that a Christian owned company would support other Christian organizations!  I just don't know what to make of this revelation!  Although, I think it is safe to assume that Planned Parenthood, Family Equality Council, The GLBT National Help Center, Human Rights Campaign, Parents, Family & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, etc.  DONATE TO AND SUPPORT, ANTI-CHRISTIAN Organizations. See what I did there?  I have a feeling these Orgs also support ANTI-REPUBLICAN as well as ANTI-TRUMP organizations.  Where is the outrage?  How dare these gay people support organizations that support the LGBTQ community!  Why in the world would they do that?   Hmmmm, let me think on that one.  I also searched out the context behind the author's comment:  "Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was..."  Has the founder and owner of Chick-Fil-A made "vile" comments against the LGBTQ community?  Not that I have found.  However, it seems by simply stating your religious belief's regarding the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman is considered vile.  I suppose when Obama was running for President he should have kept his VILE mouth shut because he said the same thing and then changed his stance.  HA, weird!  Oh but wait there is this; "Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."  Guess who held THIS religious and moral conviction and stated it in 2000 and 2013?  Hillary Clinton!  Interesting how our past President and President wanna-be were so quick to drop their VILE convictions.  I am sure the Huffington Post condemned those 2 for their despicable convictions and stance (at the time) on straight marriage.  Right?  

My second thought after reading this Huffington Post piece was this; Could the author of this commentary, Noah Michelson be sued and forced to take tolerance and reprogramming classes because he refuses to spend his money, support and eat at Chick-Fil-A?  Could the Huffington Post be sued for allowing one of its writers to espouse such discrimination and bigotry towards a Christian company?  Refusing to spend one's money somewhere due to the company's religious beliefs is total discrimination!  This man should be FORCED to eat at Chick-Fil-A or suffer the consequences of being publicly humiliated for being a discriminating, intolerant, bigot... RIGHT?  

Daniella Cross is the Caretaker of 4Earth.com and featured writer

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

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? 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.


   

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 lefters 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 the 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 as to 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
 
 

 

SLAVERY HAS ENDED AND NOW YOU CAN FINALLY GO HOME!

 
I think a little reality check is in order. Let examine America. This country is 242 years old. We have the longest surviving Constitutional Republic in history. And we are a pretty amazing country that people come to in droves for hopes of a better life! Prior to Europeans coming to this land, and long before what we now know as Native Americans, were people from East Asia. They then evolved into all the various Native tribes we now. However, these people had their share of bloody wars to gain land and territory and the Sioux tribe was the fiercest and most vicious and victorious, killing and plundering other tribes for their land. The acquisition of land is not a new concept reserved for the American settlers. If you know your history, you will have a concept of why the Crusades were fought. And for those of you with a short-term memory, perhaps WWll will suffice to explain the taking over of land or at least the attempts to. Thankfully we have become a more civilized people and are not seeing many countries or groups trying to seize countries or land by force. Well except for our Federal Government and the South Africans, but that is a Liberal discussion for another time. Moreover, I am not seeing liberal teachers heading out to the Indian (yes I said it) reservation and taking home a family and giving them their home and land in reparations for the "sins" of their forefathers.
 
I also haven't seen the descendants of the black people who owned slaves doing anything for the descendants of the slaves they owned. Why is that? Why don't people talk about the black slave owners in our history? I found this interesting tidbit: "The most solid data we found was published in an article in the Root by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard University historian. Gates cited research by Carter G. Woodson, an African-American historian who died in 1950. He found that in 1830, a total of "3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. With three more decades of population growth, it’s plausible that the number of black-owned slaves could have grown to 20,000 by 1860, historians told us."
 
Speaking of Africa and slaves...Slavery is still rampant in Africa and weirdly it is not the white man enslaving these men, women, and children! Just like it wasn't the white men who rounded up these poor Africans and shipped them ALL OVER THE WORLD as slaves! IT WAS DARK SKINNED MEN. Yes, in 2018, in AFRICA, slavery is alive and a bustling business. But what really chaps my hide are these teachers and those black liberals that complain and cry and whine that their ancestors were TAKEN to the United States by force...."They had NO CHOICE!" Be that as it may, but Dorothy, guess what, you can click your heels and go home now! You and your ancestors have not been slaves for a long time now, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE YEARS TO BE EXACT! YOU ARE NOT SLAVES HERE ANYMORE---wake up from your delusion! So, why aren't these upset Liberals moving back to their homeland if they are so displeased with America? After all, you won't be the minority there, the WHITE person will. You will be in AFRICA--the motherland and you will be treated fairly and there is no racism there.
 
It is interesting that right before and directly after WWll hundreds of thousands of Jews returned to their homeland, Israel. Most of these people after the war had nothing, but managed to get back to their homeland...to a place the majority had never been to before! So, why haven't we seen a mass exodus of black people returning to their homeland where they can reclaim their roots and heritage? I do believe this is an honest question and one that seems taboo to even speak of. And I would like an intellectually honest answer. I have many black friends and I would be sad to see them leave, but I would never get in their way of going back to a place that they felt they were STOLEN away from. I would certainly think that after a century and a half, those who had anger issues about living in the United States against their will, well, at least against the will's of their great great great grandparents, would gladly move back to their ancestral home instead of complaining about living in the greatest country on earth!




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


 
 
 

View older posts »

I have stuff to say!

SHUT IT DOWN AND BUILD IT UP!

Well, every member of Congress gets paid during a shutdown. However, let's do some quick math. So let's take the average federal employee salary: The high is $115,594 in DC and the low is $63,148.87, so let just use $89,372.00 as our average, with 261 work days in 2018, so that's $342.42 a day. Now there are 2.1 million federal workers nationwide, approximately 800,000 are expected to be affected by the shutdown. There are 420,000 federal employees deemed “essential.” So, right now the Federal government is running on 420,000 employees. Let's look at the 800,000. At $342.42 a day in earnings that comes to $273,936,000 a day we are saving our government and so far, after only 13 days we have saved $3,561,168,000! That's only $1,438,832,000 away from getting our wall, or SIX MORE DAYS!
 
As with every Government shut-down, it becomes painfully obvious that our government is BLOATED with unessential employees. I talked to someone the other day and they had no idea that the government was shut down. Really, why do we need over 2 MILLION government employees? What do they really do and why do we need ALL of them?
 
 
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer

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

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 trunk load of batteries! Lithium must be mined and in great quantities to supply enough batteries to maintain and store all that energy that move those "clean" "Green" cars. Talk about Raping the land!
I few years back, our local electric company would send me a guilt letter showing that our house used 10 times more electricity then 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 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 following California’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to ban all 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 that 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 them 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 quicker off 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.

 

The Welfare Plantation


Prior to the 1960's, 80% of black families had a 2 parent support system. The black family was thriving and not dependant upon the Government for their care. So what happened and why are we so conditioned to resort to the Slavery rhetoric when it comes to the poor black communities? President Johnson initiated a program called "The War On Poverty" and part of this so-called "war" was designed to make sure that fathers were not in the household for mothers to obtain Government assistance.
This was the beginning of the complete collapse of the low-income family. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery of the past, but everything to do with the American Welfare Plantation!
 
As we hurtle towards the 2018 mid-term elections we are witnessing a multitude of black people breaking the chains that have held them captive on the Welfare Plantation since the 1960's. But how did they even get there to begin with? How did so many gain their freedom to then become lulled back into slavery? Let's start with the realities and racism of our President at the time, Lyndon B Johnson. "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again." He was also famous for saying, "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." Johnson had a very precise plan and so far it has been working. All he had to do was to undereducated the black community, get rid of fathers and control their food and health care.
 
Although Lyndon Johnson, championed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signed it into law, it was well known that he was a racist. Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson referred to it as the “nigger bill” to his political colleagues. After appointing Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he is reported as saying, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.” So let's put all the rhetoric away and just call Johnson what he was--A RACIST! And he had NO INTENTIONS of helping the black communities. In reality, he was hell-bent on destroying them! The "War on Poverty" campaign was the ticket to do just that, and it worked!
According to "Project 21" (a leading voice for Black Conservatives) Spokesman, Derryck Green, “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on the government to sustain livelihoods.”
 
Regan knew this was disastrous for the black communities, "We waged war on Poverty and poverty won." But really did nothing to stop it. President George H.W. Bush, in the 1992 State of the Union Address, pointed out: 'Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle; it was never meant to be a habit; it was never supposed to be passed on from generation to generation like a legacy.' Bush’s comment echoed a statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, long before the War on Poverty even began, warned government assistance could be like a 'narcotic.'"
 
And the terrible irony is that even the people in the poor black communities in the 70's knew how devastating it was to be back on the Plantation...they saw their children and grandchildren ignorantly slip their chains on as they became slaves to Welfare for decades and they were powerless to stop it. This was very calculated and by no means was an attempt to "help" to the poor, especially the black poor. By its design, the welfare system was meant to discourage fathers from being in the home and in essence encouraging single motherhood and multiple children. The government was extremely strict on their law--NO FATHERS ALLOWED to receive assistance. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing and understood how quickly they could put the poor blacks back into chains.
 
And now, we are here in 2018 and it appears that a very large number of black people are starting to speak out against their slave masters, AKA the Democratic Party and are shedding their chains and walking away from the Plantation. Just as it was before, they are going to leave penniless into their country without the slavemaster talking care of them. But they will find that they can forge their way, they can find success, the plantation ghettoes will no longer be their home.
FATHERS, WELCOME HOME! Now go rebuild your communities!
 
 
 
Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.
 
 

Sexual De-Evolution. The End of the Revolution!

It seems that the Sexual Revolution that began in the 60's has escalated in our current era where men and women are equal has backfired miserably! Now, now Feminist, Liberal woman, you can't have it both ways...you can't insist that men have morals and values towards women if this is not taught to them. And you also know that it must be taught because instinctively men are sexual hounds. Being moral is not instinctive to anyone, especially men. You, liberal, Feminist's are of a mindset that there should be NO rules when it comes to sex...you want the government out of your bedroom and far away from your bodies. You want equal pay and equal treatment and you LOVE to talk about your vagina's! You stand in the streets, NAKED and scream in protest against our President, you wear your pussy hats and costumes that realistically resemble your genitalia. You want free contraceptives and have pushed a sexual agenda to our elementary aged children in their schools. You encourage gay men to parade in the streets, publically exposing their penis's to onlookers, including children.  YOU ARE THE FULFILMENT of the Sexual Revolution your mothers began in this country. YOU ARE ALL ABOUT SEX and yet you insist that men, who you claim equality to should have morals and values when it comes to anything sexual. Here is the reality you Liberal Feminist women, without someone teaching men morals and values, you will be raising men, who by simple biological instinct want to hump anything that has legs. This is YOUR CULTURE, what YOU have created. If you insist equality with men, then you just better figure out how to have the same genetic sexual drive as men because morals and values are NOT written in your handbook.  It's time you actually begin to keep up with a man's superior sex drive if you insist on being equal in all areas!  

So please stop crying about men exposing themselves to you, while you walk around wearing your vagina's, stop saying that men should have restraint when a woman wears a mini skirt and a shirt with her boobs hanging out or gets drunk at a party and intensely flirts with a man. Why should men have any sort of restraint when women can't? Because without any morals or values being taught to either gender all you have are animal instincts and animal instincts are all about sex.  Why is it that men are the only ones held to a higher standard? Why is it that only men have to constantly control their genetic instinct under great temptation? While women can dress like prostitutes--yes prostitutes dress to get picked up; the sexier and more revealing of the goods the better! Women can get "off their feet" drunk at parties--now I have seen many drunk women in my day and they have ZERO inhibitions...and yet it is up to the men, yes even the drunk ones to show restraint.  What this says to me is that MEN are considered to be more responsible, more resistant to temptation and obviously SMARTER than women! And YOU, you idiotic, liberal Feminists have certainly proved this. So stick that in your vagina costume and smoke it!

Daniella Cross is the keeper of 4Earth.com and the featured writer

 

DEATH BY NUMBERS!

The period of time in and around WWll was so devastating in terms of life 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.
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

The Tariff Slave Trade


I believe the major issue here is that most people don't understand what a tariff is. Moreover, they have absolutely NO CLUE as to what a Trade surplus or a Trade deficit is.
A tariff, simply put, is a tax placed on an imported good. For instance, theoretically, when a country such as Germany or China sends their cars here to be sold, a reasonable and fair tax or tariff is placed on that vehicle. These taxes are not anything new and as a matter of fact, prior to 1913, the U.S. government raised most of its revenue from tariffs. That's right, this is how our railroads were built, roads, bridges and the very basic infrastructure of our country. We didn't have income tax back then! GASP!
 
The main reason for tariffs was to protect our economy from countries that used cheap or slave labor to send goods to our country and compete with our National goods and production. This holds true for all countries that impose a tariff. The civil war had its roots steeped in this ideology...it wasn't simply about freeing the slaves. It was also an economic war. The Democrats really didn't want to give up their FREE LABORERS as they sold their cotton and produce to the North making huge profits. The North, on the other hand, was experiencing European immigrants flooding in that needed work and money. The economic scales were tipped to the South with free labor, cheap land and an abundance of profit. However, as sweet as that story sounds, the reality was that the South was being exploited with High Tariff's, while the North was actually benefitting...the South was being hit hard with tariffs and the North was making the profits. Revisionist history has just about wiped all these facts, and it was all about tariffs! Learn more about what really caused the civil war here: http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 
Ok, back to the issue at hand. Do Tariff's make imported items more expensive to us in the US? Well, we can look at it this way. Did Walmart put many small, local business out of business? Yes, they certainly did! It's really the same concept. Same goes for HomeDepot and Lowes and other big conglomerates. When I was younger, I don't remember my parents complaining about the price of the local Agway feed store, and I never had issues with the prices at our local hardware store here in CDA--Ernst...as a matter of fact I miss that store. But because the US doesn't charge places like China and Japan a realistic and fair (to the US) tariff, they can send cheap products here and we quickly forget about the little local stores we all patronized. And, we not only grew accustomed to these less expensive products, we also got used to the inferiority! "Cheap Chinese crap!" We have all muttered that under our breath when something we own breaks. We are now a disposable society.
 
And if we are talking about one thing we export a lot of, it's cars. Cars being shipped from the U.S. into Europe face a 10 percent import duty while European cars into the U.S. faced a 2.5 percent import duty. So that means that people in Europe are more likely to buy a German vehicle because the 10% tariff we have to pay, increases the cost of that car. Oh, but have you ever wondered why you can pick up an Asian vehicle so much cheaper than a Ford, Dodge, or a GM vehicle? A car imported to the United States from China faces a Tariff of 2.5%, while a car is sent to China from the United States, the Tariff is 25%! If China had to pay 25% to export its cars to the US, then, well, obviously they won't be a dirt cheap as they are now! And maybe there wouldn't be so many stupid Subaru drivers, putting around like grannies, clogging up our roads.
 
So, in a nutshell, a trade deficit (losing money) occurs when people demand cheap, inferior products at discount price from places like China and Japan and don't buy locally--in their own country and when, as is occurring to the US and has since the 1970's, our products are being overtaxed in tariff's from other countries, therefore making them more of a luxury item, instead of an everyday item. It's difficult to make money when an export tax is beyond reasonable. A surplus is the exact opposite...when our exports exceed our imports; when people demand American made products because they are quality made and affordable to foreign countries, we will export more with fair and reasonable tariffs.
 
Now, if the playing field on tariffs becomes equal, because...equality and all, then the prices of goods imported here will either go up, if we drastically increase the tariff on other countries imported products, or stay the same if those countries lower our outrageously high tariff's the US pays to export to their country. Either way, we're not picking cotton anymore!


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

The Undoing of Unity With The Demon of Diversity!

For the last several decades the word, DIVERSITY echoes through the hills and valleys of our concrete jungles.  We are told over and over again that diversity is a good thing for our communities.  We are shamed if our cities and towns and the smallest of Hamlets are not intermixed with a variety of colors, shapes, religions and political leanings.  God forbid a community that can exist with likeness...  I decided to do a search on the word, Diversity to see how it had changed over the years to fit the political agenda we see now being thrust upon us.  So, obviously, I went to my very Old, Webster dictionary that mainly collects dust on my shelf.  It's a first edition (1828) and actually has the real meanings of words gone by.  

DIVERSITYnoun [Latin]

1. Difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness. There may be diversity without contrariety. There is a great diversity in human constitutions.

2. Variety; as a diversity of ceremonies in churches.

3. Distinct being, as opposed to identity.

4. Variegation.

Then to the newest edition of Websters, just to see how much the meaning of the word had changed and the political and ethnic spin it may have garnered.  So, I type in the word, Diversity and Webster def. and I am immediately and firstly given the Plural:
 

Definition of diversity

plural diversities
1the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 
: varietyespecially 
: the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization 
  • programs intended to promote
  • diversity in schools
2an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities 
: an instance of being diverse 
  • diversity of opinion

 

  •  
  •  


 

 

 

ANTI-CHRISTIAN Huffington Post writer Discriminates against Chick-Fil-A


After reading this Commentary by the Huffington Post, I came away with several questions.  The first was the constant statement that Chick-Fil-A donates to "Anti-Gay" organizations-->"Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was by donating millions of dollars each year to anti-LGBTQ organizations via its Winshape nonprofit organization."  I saw this statement several times in this piece.  What exactly is an Anti-Gay organization?  Do these people go around and bop gays on the head?  Do they have a mission to campaign to slander gay people at every turn?  Do they want gay people dead?  Are they like those who hate Trump and profane him on a daily basis even to the point of killing him?  So, with these many questions in mind, I decided to click the link Huffington Post so graciously provided to see what vile, evil organizations Chick-Fil-A was donating to.  "Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009"  Here is the list:
Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

WOW, just look at those organizations!  They appear to be, um, Christian Organizations!  SHOCKING that a Christian owned company would support other Christian organizations!  I just don't know what to make of this revelation!  Although, I think it is safe to assume that Planned Parenthood, Family Equality Council, The GLBT National Help Center, Human Rights Campaign, Parents, Family & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, etc.  DONATE TO AND SUPPORT, ANTI-CHRISTIAN Organizations. See what I did there?  I have a feeling these Orgs also support ANTI-REPUBLICAN as well as ANTI-TRUMP organizations.  Where is the outrage?  How dare these gay people support organizations that support the LGBTQ community!  Why in the world would they do that?   Hmmmm, let me think on that one.  I also searched out the context behind the author's comment:  "Even worse, the company put its money where Cathy’s vile mouth was..."  Has the founder and owner of Chick-Fil-A made "vile" comments against the LGBTQ community?  Not that I have found.  However, it seems by simply stating your religious belief's regarding the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman is considered vile.  I suppose when Obama was running for President he should have kept his VILE mouth shut because he said the same thing and then changed his stance.  HA, weird!  Oh but wait there is this; "Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."  Guess who held THIS religious and moral conviction and stated it in 2000 and 2013?  Hillary Clinton!  Interesting how our past President and President wanna-be were so quick to drop their VILE convictions.  I am sure the Huffington Post condemned those 2 for their despicable convictions and stance (at the time) on straight marriage.  Right?  

My second thought after reading this Huffington Post piece was this; Could the author of this commentary, Noah Michelson be sued and forced to take tolerance and reprogramming classes because he refuses to spend his money, support and eat at Chick-Fil-A?  Could the Huffington Post be sued for allowing one of its writers to espouse such discrimination and bigotry towards a Christian company?  Refusing to spend one's money somewhere due to the company's religious beliefs is total discrimination!  This man should be FORCED to eat at Chick-Fil-A or suffer the consequences of being publicly humiliated for being a discriminating, intolerant, bigot... RIGHT?  

Daniella Cross is the Caretaker of 4Earth.com and featured writer

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

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? 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.


   

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 lefters 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 the 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 as to 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
 
 

 

SLAVERY HAS ENDED AND NOW YOU CAN FINALLY GO HOME!

 
I think a little reality check is in order. Let examine America. This country is 242 years old. We have the longest surviving Constitutional Republic in history. And we are a pretty amazing country that people come to in droves for hopes of a better life! Prior to Europeans coming to this land, and long before what we now know as Native Americans, were people from East Asia. They then evolved into all the various Native tribes we now. However, these people had their share of bloody wars to gain land and territory and the Sioux tribe was the fiercest and most vicious and victorious, killing and plundering other tribes for their land. The acquisition of land is not a new concept reserved for the American settlers. If you know your history, you will have a concept of why the Crusades were fought. And for those of you with a short-term memory, perhaps WWll will suffice to explain the taking over of land or at least the attempts to. Thankfully we have become a more civilized people and are not seeing many countries or groups trying to seize countries or land by force. Well except for our Federal Government and the South Africans, but that is a Liberal discussion for another time. Moreover, I am not seeing liberal teachers heading out to the Indian (yes I said it) reservation and taking home a family and giving them their home and land in reparations for the "sins" of their forefathers.
 
I also haven't seen the descendants of the black people who owned slaves doing anything for the descendants of the slaves they owned. Why is that? Why don't people talk about the black slave owners in our history? I found this interesting tidbit: "The most solid data we found was published in an article in the Root by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard University historian. Gates cited research by Carter G. Woodson, an African-American historian who died in 1950. He found that in 1830, a total of "3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. With three more decades of population growth, it’s plausible that the number of black-owned slaves could have grown to 20,000 by 1860, historians told us."
 
Speaking of Africa and slaves...Slavery is still rampant in Africa and weirdly it is not the white man enslaving these men, women, and children! Just like it wasn't the white men who rounded up these poor Africans and shipped them ALL OVER THE WORLD as slaves! IT WAS DARK SKINNED MEN. Yes, in 2018, in AFRICA, slavery is alive and a bustling business. But what really chaps my hide are these teachers and those black liberals that complain and cry and whine that their ancestors were TAKEN to the United States by force...."They had NO CHOICE!" Be that as it may, but Dorothy, guess what, you can click your heels and go home now! You and your ancestors have not been slaves for a long time now, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE YEARS TO BE EXACT! YOU ARE NOT SLAVES HERE ANYMORE---wake up from your delusion! So, why aren't these upset Liberals moving back to their homeland if they are so displeased with America? After all, you won't be the minority there, the WHITE person will. You will be in AFRICA--the motherland and you will be treated fairly and there is no racism there.
 
It is interesting that right before and directly after WWll hundreds of thousands of Jews returned to their homeland, Israel. Most of these people after the war had nothing, but managed to get back to their homeland...to a place the majority had never been to before! So, why haven't we seen a mass exodus of black people returning to their homeland where they can reclaim their roots and heritage? I do believe this is an honest question and one that seems taboo to even speak of. And I would like an intellectually honest answer. I have many black friends and I would be sad to see them leave, but I would never get in their way of going back to a place that they felt they were STOLEN away from. I would certainly think that after a century and a half, those who had anger issues about living in the United States against their will, well, at least against the will's of their great great great grandparents, would gladly move back to their ancestral home instead of complaining about living in the greatest country on earth!




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


 
 
 

View older posts »

Important Notice!


4EARTH® is our registered trademarked name and is in NO WAY Affiliated with the newly created company, 4EARTH farms.  
We have asked them to cease and desist from using our name in their product advertising, promotions, company name et al.
We apologize to the people who have sent us emails thinking they were contacting 4earthfarms and they are hearing no response.