Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Friday, January 27, 2017

Who Owns Your Land; You Or Our Local Government?

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.

Another Rezoning Request
Here goes Gloucester County, Virginia down the rezoning road again. Gloucester resident and businessman, C.W. Davis is asking our local government to rezone 5.4 acres of land on Short Lane so he can build five, four unit, apartment buildings; for a total of 20 apartments. Mr. Davis’ land and the land surrounding his are currently zoned for single family homes only. Our county government is recommending the Planning Commission deny Mr. Davis request which will be deliberated during a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on February 2, 2017.

Over the last couple or three years there have been numerous requests submitted to our local government to have land rezoned to allow the construction of approximately 440 apartments or apartment like units. (i.e. condos, town homes, etc) Of those requests only one has been denied by our Board of Supervisors; the request of Gloucester resident and businessman, Tabb Bridges. Mr. Bridges requested that a single lot located in an established single family dwelling neighborhood in the courthouse area be rezoned so he could build one duplex rental unit (two apartments). One of our elected supervisors had this to say about the Board of Supervisors decision to deny Mr. Bridges rezoning request.

“First, the proposed development was right in the center of a cluster of single family homes.  A duplex would look out of place in that subdivision, would you not agree?  It would have caused a slippery slope of events going forward, and I am opposed to "micro zoning".” 

“Second, we believe the Comprehensive Plan incorrectly classified this subdivision as multi family use (we will be correcting that).” 

“Thirdly, while not all of the residents appeared at our meeting, we were inundated with an overwhelming number of residents opposed to the proposed development.”

The following was my reply.

As I understand it; micro zoning is the detailed preparation of land use maps by local bodies and public authorities, fixing specific land uses for each site (such as residential, educational, commercial, etc.). Micro zoning also details the density of land uses at particular sites. In other words; micro zoning establishes a detailed land use pattern.

I too, am against micro zoning, but it appears we may interpret the words “micro zoning” somewhat differently. In my simple mind I believe Gloucester County is micro zoned and such zoning is further micro managed when requests like Mr. Bridges’ are denied and others are approved.

Basing decisions on “how something looks” is micro managing micro zoning to the extreme. What you find acceptable from a “how it looks” standpoint may not be acceptable to others and vise versa. As I shared in my article on GVLN, there are duplex units within multiple neighborhoods here at Gloucester Point that cause no negative impacts on any of the surrounding single family dwellings. Most people don’t even notice they are duplexes. So I guess my answer would be; no to your question about the duplexes “looking out of place” within the courthouse area neighborhood.

As for potential errors in the comprehensive plan; I don’t know what to tell you other than it is the BOS’s plan. I am of the opinion that local and other government involvement in how a landowner uses their property should be strictly limited to protecting the health, welfare and safety of the citizenry. Nothing more, nothing less. No level of government within the United States should have the power to prevent any land use based on how something will look or whether or not it will aesthetically fit in with surrounding properties. I also believe no level of government should have the power to restrict growth to predetermined areas as is the case with the “Village Plan” and “Development District” concepts our local government has adopted without consent of the people.

It is great the people of the neighborhood at the courthouse successfully rallied together to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, but they are not the only ones to speak against such rezoning requests. I would be willing to confidently bet that if the voices of every person in the Gloucester Point, Hayes, Guinea and Wicomico areas (primary users of the shopping center) were heard, there would be overwhelming opposition to the 120 apartments that will now be constructed as part of the York River Crossing Shopping Center. I would also be willing to bet that if all of the responses the BOS received, in one form or another, pertaining to the YRCS rezoning were tallied, we would find there were more voices who spoke in opposition of the rezoning than who spoke in favor of it. We just were not as organized and public about it as the folks in the courthouse area neighborhood were.      

Personally, I believe we have more than enough existing apartments and apartments approved for future construction, but who am I to say what Mr. Davis or any other land owner may or may not do with their property? How will our Board of Supervisors “Rule” on Mr. Davis’ rezoning request? Will the “good ole boy” system come into play? Will they continue to support United Nations land use agendas on American soil? Or will they begin to return Gloucester to the Republic land of freedom that it once was? At this point, your guess is as good as mine. We will continue to follow this story and provide you with updates as necessary.

Email your comments to

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Thursday, December 8, 2016

What the Heck is Happening to Gloucester’s Public Education System??

On Monday, November 28, 2016, I and some other folks attended an open house and viewed a film at Gloucester High School. The school system appeared to be prepared for 350 or so people, but only 60 to 65 people showed up. I believe more Gloucester People would have attended if the school system had scheduled it for a Saturday event from, say 9AM to 3PM and advertised it vigorously within the community. Instead, the event began at 5:15PM and lasted until around 8PM, on a Monday. Aren’t most people either still at work or driving home at 5:15PM on weekdays? The event time was also during dinner hours for most folks.   

Having attended GHS for a couple of years shortly after it was built, I was amazed at the great condition of the schoolhouse. After hearing stories for the last several years about how bad of shape GHS is in; I was expecting the place to be in shambles. That was absolutely not the case.

There likely needs to be a significant amount of money spent on our schoolhouse, but not as much as our school administrators are trying to make us believe. One of their complaints is the undependability and inefficiency of the heating, ventilation and cooling system. Considering the schoolhouse was built in the mid 1970’s, it is probably time to replace the entire system. The administrators complain the roof needs to be replaced. Well, roof maintenance is part of maintaining any building, so if there is a need to replace the waterproofing components of the roof, then it needs to be replaced before other components are damaged. If a future replacement account for major schoolhouse components had been started when the school was built, money would be available when needed. Every year monies could have been added to the account as part of the schoolhouse’s operating expenses. When a school system builds a schoolhouse it is provided with information that identifies the life expectancy of such things as HVAC and roofing systems. Our local, state and federal governments choose to wait until something falls apart, then borrow money to fix and replace things. Operating this way is costing us far more than investing money in a replacement fund every year. Just let it accumulate interest each year and then pay cash when things are needed. Maybe someone needs to look into who is benefiting from all of the interest money we pay each year.

During our tour we spoke with teachers who said noise transfer from neighboring classrooms and hallways interferes with teaching and learning. I asked if changes in the methods of teaching had increased the noise level in today’s classrooms. The answer was along the lines of “probably”. Upon asking more questions it became apparent that a lot of the noise is generated by small groups from varying classes being sent in the hallway to work independent of the rest of their class. I found all of this odd because when I attended GHS, we had 25 to 30 students per class and we broke down into small groups at times, but we remained in the classroom. Everyone was taught and expected to be conscious of the volume of their voice and to respect each other by not disrupting the class. As a matter of fact, most of the classrooms didn’t even have doors. (Doors were installed some years later though.) We as students were expected to keep the noise level down and for the most part we did. If noise transference is a problem, there are ways of fixing the problem without reconfiguring the entire inside of the building.

Speaking of reconfiguring; that appears to be our school system’s ultimate objective. After touring several areas of the schoolhouse we were directed to the auditorium to watch what I consider an indoctrination film titled, “Most Likely to Succeed”. Chuck Thompson published a review of the film on GVLN and can be found at this link  I must say I agree with Mr. Thompson’s opinions.

America’s public education system has been under siege for a long time; the ultimate objective being to lower America’s educational standards and success in order to bring our Country inline with the objectives of the United Nations/New World Order. Every aspect of their objectives entails weakening the strong and empowering the weak, on a global scale.  

America used to have the most robust and successful public education system in the world. Our public education system significantly helped make America the country with the strongest economy and military in the world. Though there have always been efforts to compromise America’s educational success, none triggered a rapid decline in American public education quality like George H.W. Bush’s commitment of America to the provisions and objectives of United Nations Agenda 21. Don’t get me wrong; there were efforts prior to 1997 to implement Socialism/Communism into America’s public education system. It wasn’t until Old Man Bush sold America out that everything really began to snowball. Mr. Obama further committed America to U.N./New World Order Rule when he committed “OUR”  Country to U.N. Agenda 2030 which has set the efforts of implementing Socialism/Communism into our public school systems into overdrive.

Gloucester County has not been immune to what our so called Presidents have done to our public education system since old man Bush committed America to Agenda 21. We never see those we elect at the local level truly fight back against the plague that is engulfing our country. We elect them to be our voice and all they do is remain silent. They remain silent because we allow them to by not speaking up and telling them we are not going to allow the federal and state government to herd us down the road to Socialism/Communism.   

Former Gloucester Public Schools Superintendent, Howard B. (Ben) Kiser was successful in steering our elected representatives into pushing the Socialism/Communism envelop, by shoving the design of Page Middle School down this community’s throat. Now Mr. Kiser is in a position to influence all school districts in Virginia as the Director of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents. The schoolhouse designs Mr. Kiser and others who I consider to be Socialist/Communist oriented traitors to America are pushing on us, were created after thousands of America’s so called educators like Kiser visited Finland on indoctrination trips. They claim Finland’s way of educating is the best way because Finland currently has one of the best rated public education systems in the world. Rated at what measures and by whom; other New World Order propagandists? What our elected leaders and school administrators don’t tell us is; Finland is a Socialist Country where the government foots the bill for everything including educating teachers. They don’t tell us that Finland educators say they have equal success in older box style schoolhouses as they do in modern, more expensive designed schoolhouses like Page Middle School. They don’t tell us the personal income tax rate in Finland averaged 52.96% from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 62.20% in 1995 and a record low of 49.00% in 2010. (How would you like the government taking over half of what you earn?) They don’t tell us Finland’s schools practice collectivism. They don’t tell us collectivism is a trait of Communism and Socialism. They don’t tell us that in collectivist cultures, identity is based on the social network to which one belongs and with the implementation of collectivism in our public schools, individualism will be erased. Everything will be about what is good for the group and completely ignoring what is best for each individual. This will erase the potential of there being other great individuals like George Washington Carver, Louis Pasture, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison and so on. The only way to achieve the goal of collectivism is by “leveling the playing field”; in other words the strong must be weakened and the weak must be empowered. In the education spectrum that equates to lowering standards to make it appear more students are successful in academia land.

I believe we need to take back control of our public education system and return it to an educational institution that reflects the values, morals, traditions, customs, quality and superiority that empowered America to become the greatest and freest nation in the World. Common Core must go, but more importantly, the federal government must be stopped from blackmailing our public education system into submitting to the Socialist/Communist ideology of the United Nations.

Look for a future article on, “where the money will come from to pay for our school administration’s $100,000,000 vision”.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Parent Warrior 

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Is Our Constitution Outdated ? By; Sue Long

It has been said that our Constitution is no longer appropriate for today’s modern times. Indeed, Obama stated in his address to the United Nations, “We can no longer rely on a rulebook made a few centuries ago.” The reasoning is that new times call for new rules.

But what does “new” refer to here? Yes, obviously these are new times. But what are the proposed “new” rules? They are socialism and communism and the same old collectivist rationale that is as old as civilization itself. Considering the length of time that people have been on this earth, our Constitution is a newly developed concept.

Collectivism is the concept that individuals are subservient to the group; a group having no rights are thus subject to the dictates of the ruler(s). Individualism is just the opposite, where rights of the individual are recognized as being inherent, God-given, and not subject to being subverted: thus, Individual rights are not subject to destruction by ruler(s) edicts.

It was the principle of individualism, and the belief that the purpose of government is to protect our inherent rights, that gave birth to our Constitution. Other ruling documents spell out what government can do. Our Constitution spells out what government cannot do, thereby protecting people’s inherent rights from govern-mental rulings.

There have been attempts of such in the past, but they have been short-lived and/or limited. It wasn't until the birth of America that the principle was given full rein. The Founding Fathers studied history learning from past successes and downfalls, thus seeing the principles that work best for the good of mankind. The result is that we have become the envy of the world, exceeding any conditions elsewhere. Things that we consider to be necessities were unheard of in the past and are scarce commodities elsewhere today.

Consider: For thousands of centuries there have been people on this earth that are just as capable as the people living today. Yet, they lived in poverty. The life style of the royalty of the past doesn’t begin to compare with that of the poorest in America today. People throughout the world have just as much desire and ability to succeed and improve their lot as have the Americans, yet they are unable to do so. Thus, the masses have immigrated to America – or strive to.

America has been great not because of what government has done but because of what it has not done.

In America in recent times, momentum from the past has allowed a degree of prosperity to survive. But for how long? The assault by collectivists that has attacked America since its inception is taking its toll.

We have gone so far afield from the principles our Constitution was founded upon that many people have absolutely no conception of them or what our Constitution even says.

We have been the recipients of the most privileged life, one beyond the imagination of past times and the envy of the world today. Yet, we are throwing it away. Unless or until we once again embrace the principles embodied in individualism, and adhere to our Constitution, we will leave a very sad heritage to future generations.

IF we are not the home of the brave – we will no longer remain the land of the free.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

President Obama speaks on airstrikes against ISIL in Syria

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Watch: President Obama delivers a statement on airstrikes on ISIL
Last night, President Obama ordered American armed forces to begin targeted airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Speaking from the White House South Lawn today before heading to the United Nations General Assembly, the President made it clear that these strikes are part of the U.S. campaign to deliver one message on ISIL: They will find no safe haven.
The U.S. military actions also included strikes to disrupt plotting against the U.S. and our allies by the Khorasan Group -- a cell of seasoned al Qaeda operatives in Syria.
In his statement, the President made clear that the fight against these terrorists "is not America's fight alone":
"The people and governments of the Middle East are rejecting ISIL, and standing up for the peace and security that the people of the world deserve. Not since the Gulf War has the United States been joined in direct military action by such a broad coalition of Arab partners. Meanwhile, we will move forward with our plan -- supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress -- to ramp up our effort to train and equip the Syrian opposition, who are the best counter-weight to ISIL and the Assad regime."
President Obama also previewed his trip to the U.N. General Assembly, where he'll continue building support for the effort against ISIL:
"Over the next several days, I will be meeting Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq and with friends and allies at the United Nations to continue building support for the coalition that is confronting this profound threat to peace security. This overall effort will take time. There are challenges ahead. But we’re going to do what is necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group -- for the security of our country, the region, and the entire world."

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

“For the Common Good. “
Thank you Gloucester County for the support and encouragement you have provided me and this site.
The Virginia Constitution was written by men from all walks of life that wanted us to not live under the rule of an unjust government.  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?  How about the Constitution of Virginia?
Today I would like to look at Mr. Thompson’s blog: Beware The Agenda 21 Protesters
Specifically, I want to look at statements in the conclusion: Why would anyone fight the UN when we should be fighting for our Constitutional Rights as well as our Bill of Rights which by US law, has no higher authority? Instead the questions should be asked, who elected any of the United Nations officials and or politicians to begin with, and what charter are they working from, under what authority?”
Are these statements correct? To do this we will use the United States Constitution.  The source I am using is: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (
Based on the US Constitution Article I, Section 10
“1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
The States do not have the right to form a Treaty with the UN or anyone else.  So they have no justification to change any laws based on UN or other requirements.  Who has the right to make Treaties?  That is covered in Article II, Section 2
“2: He [The President (added to clarify)] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
This is pretty clear the President can make Treaties.  However, this is not the end of the Constitution and there are other areas that have to be considered and followed to make changes to US law that impacts The US Constitution.  Article IV, Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
I think that maybe this would be used to important to stop an UN invasion of our Republican form of government?  However, the founding Fathers being that they did not trust foreign powers or people with less than honorable intentions set up a process that has to be followed to change our Constitution and Agenda 21 and other UN Treaties do just that.  Article V
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall proposeAmendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
I do not remember any Constitutional amendments being offered on Agenda 21.  However, there does seem to be some validity to UN Treaties being made into the law of the land.  Article VI
“2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

We now need to consider are the UN Treaties the law of the land?  If only there was something else in the US Constitution that superseded this statement?  Maybe amendments to the Constitution that were approved after this date can clarify what Treaties can do.  The Bill of Rights does just that limiting the power of the President and Congress.  Let look at some of these amendments and see if treaties are supreme?

Article [I]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Maybe we should use this to redress grievances?  What other rights are they trying to get rid of by Treaty?  Article [II]
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We need to remember this with another UN Treaty.
This is a good start to saying the UN Treaties and not enforceable without further changes to the Constitution is there more?  Article [IV]
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, againstunreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Maybe they cannot take our property?  What else stops the Treaties?  Article [IX]
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
IS there something else?  Article [X]
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It appears the Bill of Rights limits the rights of President in the Treaties he makes.  He cannot make treaties to steal our rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  Looks to be a continued abuse of power by the President and Congress?
Let’s go back to where we started this article: Why would anyone fight the UN when we should be fighting for our Constitutional Rights as well as our Bill of Rights which by US law, has no higher authority? Instead the questions should be asked, who elected any of the United Nations officials and or politicians to begin with, and what charter are they working from, under what authority?”
Based on this analysis it appears Mr. Thompson is very correct.  Maybe it is time to take back our rights, our government and our property.  We should start at the local level and tell our elected officials to obey the Law of the land the US Constitution and the Virginia Constitution and if they are not willing to sign on the bottom line to obey these documents they need to be removed from office.
Bring back the rule of legal laws and responsible budgets and make this "The Land of the Life Worth Living" for everyone in the county.
I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents and wrote them for all to understand. 
“For the Common Good. “
Alexander James Jay
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves on the ruin of this Country. Let us convince every invader of our freedom, that we will be as free as the constitution our fathers recognized, will justify." --Samuel Adams, A State of the Rights of the Colonists, 1772
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 20, 2013

New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated

Mean surface temperature change for 1999–2008 ...
Mean surface temperature change for 1999–2008 relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Doug McKelway
Published September 19, 2013

A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat
of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so
small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the
natural climate system” and not dangerous.

Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy
officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory
crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.

The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars
examining many of the same journals and studies that the United
Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined,
producing entirely different conclusions.

 "This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the
overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in
their review of climate science," the authors write.

The study was done under the auspices of the Heartland Institute,
which claims it "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any
government or governmental agency."

The Heartland Institute’s president, Joseph Bast, said of the study,
"The big issue in the global warming debate is how large is the human
impact on climate. And this report shows that it is very small, that
natural variability, the variability that's caused by natural cycles
of the sun and other factors, way outweigh anything the human impact
could have."

The report comes in advance of the expected release later this month
of a new U.N. report on climate change. Leaked drafts of that report
show surface temperature increases have been statistically
insignificant for the last 15 years, and that Antarctic sea ice is
increasing, not decreasing.

In addition, new satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice show it has
increased this year.

At the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday,
Republicans particularly wanted to know what President Obama planned
to do to address those fossil fuel workers who've lost their jobs as a
result of administration policy.

 In a major address at Georgetown University last June, Obama promised
there would be a special plan for those workers.

"So I would ask either one of you what are the special plans in the
president's action plan to help address these people who are losing
their jobs, " Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asked EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

"I'm not familiar with the details of those plans, but I am familiar
from reading the climate action plan that the president sees this as
both a challenge and an economic opportunity," McCarthy replied.

That exchange led to a testy retort by Ralph Hall (R-Tex.). "You got a
better answer than I received from Mrs. McCarthy about a year ago
before the science committee," Hall told McCarthy. "I may have asked
you a question you didn't like and your answer was, ‘I'm not in the
business of creating jobs.’”

Committee Democrats, along with McCarthy and Moniz, set out to counter
Republican skepticism about the impact of climate change.

"The evidence is overwhelming and the science is clear," said Moniz.
"The threat from climate change is real and urgent. The basic science
behind climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide makes the earth
warmer, and we are admitting more and more of it into the atmosphere."

Moniz added that any stabilization of surface temperatures in recent
years was an indication of a "hiatus" of global warming, not an end to
global warming.

Told of Moniz's remarks, astrophysicist  Willy Soon, one of the
NIPCC's leading scientists, reacted incredulously. "So tell us when is
it going to rise again?” he asked. “This is a question that not only
me, as a scientist, is asking , but all the lay persons should begin

The Heartland Institute's Bast told Fox News that there are no climate
models used by proponents of global warming that predict a lull in

 "Point to the model that predicted this hiatus," he said. "No
increase in violent weather , no increase in hurricanes. All of this
and we're still supposed to believe the models... models they picked
because they supported their political interests, not because they
represented good science."  Link back to original story.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.
Like us on Facebook, Tweet us, Plus One us,
Follow us through email,
follow us on Twitter.
Become a member of this site.

Stay up to date on all the latest.
Enhanced by Zemanta