No Climate Change? Rename the Climate Bill - The American Power Act

I have often said that the environmental movement is the new home for socialists and radicals that seek to bring us to a one world, socialist government. It used to be that the environmentalists were concerned with preserving the environment and protecting wildlife. Now radical social engineers have seized the movement and have laced these efforts with programs designed to hack away at the structure of capitalism while funneling money and industry out of the US and into the third world. To make the case, I will begin with the familiar faces in all of this; the Obama administration Czars and Al Gore and eventually move on to the organizations that are being used to promote this on a grand scale. Yes, they are being used. Even Lenin called leftist journalists and Marxists in the Western nations “Useful Idiots” because they were so willing and yet, had no idea of what they would eventually be doing to themselves.

The argument for global warming has a number of critics that have apparently been shut out of the debates. No less than 30,000 scientists have claimed that their work has been summarily dismissed and their data and findings have been refused entry into discussions and debates on the subject. It seems that anything or anyone that does not support the race to enact sweeping climate legislation is being swept aside. This is not isolated to the work of independent researchers. Several scientists working directly for the EPA were driven out of the agency for insisting that this data be seriously reviewed.

The Data suggesting that global warming is not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon is starting gain traction and in fact, the real data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures already peaked in 1989 and is subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on. After the news broke about manipulated data and damaging e-mails surrounding the so-called “climate researchers”, the sinister powers behind this scam have simply renamed the Climate Bill “The American Power Act” to hide the connection between the people that will gain from this and the crippled global warming argument. The name change is being attempted to try and fool people into believing that this is about revitalizing our power systems instead of admitting it is about the power that will be stolen from the American people. This legislation will damage industry in the U.S., strain our already challenged economy and remove your basic freedom to decide how much power you will personally use by making it too expensive to purchase. It isn’t all bad though…some people are positioned to make enormous amounts of money because they are strategically invested to gain from the Climate Bill or the America Power Act, as it is now being called.

Al Gore received much notoriety over his film “An Inconvenient Truth” but the real inconvenience is that a number of his facts were improperly arrived at and there are some serious flaws with the claims this film has made and in the data used to formulate those claims. Even though the UK Supreme court decided that the flaws in the film are significant enough to require schools in Great Britain that wish to show the film pass out an accompanying list of corrections, Mr. Gore feels no compelling reason to answer questions about those inconsistencies. The sad fact is that Mr. Gore has already made millions from that film and has made technology investments that will net him billions if the U.S. Climate Bill passes into law. He is now making sizable investments with the money he earned through his film to fund activist groups that favor the American Power Act. Now isn’t that curious?

Then there is Carol Browner, the White House "Climate Czar". She headed the EPA during both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency's history. Carol Browner received her education in the University of Florida. Coincidentally, that is the same school that N. David Cook attended. You remember Dr. Cook. He is the man that started the hate rhetoric about Christopher Columbus and the evil European explorers the infected the new world.

On Browner’s final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, she ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration. It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives as well. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court. Were all the high ranking officials of the Clinton era EPA playing games on their office computers or was there something that had to be deleted? Remember the Coward-Piven Strategy can only be successful if its use remains secret.

Of course an almost manic desire for secrecy is nothing new for Carol Browner or for that matter, the Obama administration. In recent meetings Browner had with U.S. Auto manufacturers regarding the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, it was disclosed by a participant in those meetings that Ms. Browner ordered that no notes were to be taken and none of the meeting issues were to be discussed outside of the meeting. This is a very troubling revelation when we are discussion an appointee that promised his administration would finally offer the American people transparency in their government. We thought he meant openness but apparently his interpretation of transparency has more to do with invisibility.

Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 "social democratic, socialist and labor parties" in 55 countries. SI's "organizing document" cites capitalism as the cause of "devastating crises," "mass unemployment," "imperialist expansion," and "colonial exploitation" worldwide. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society, with which Browner worked, contends that "the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”

There’s another one of those curious little points. Only the “developed world” would be required by the U.N.’s climate initiatives to “reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions." Even though developing nation’s manufacturing and industrial centers use fuels and manufacturing processes that are far more damaging to the ecology than developed nations, they would be exempt. Instead of a comprehensive climate program to reduce harmful emissions, that sounds more like a social program designed to shift industrial growth from Western Democracies to the third world. It also sounds incredibly similar to the mission statement from Carol Browner’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Well what do you know? Just when we needed proof that Ms. Browner’s agenda has more to do with changing the United States economic system than it does with changing the climate, along comes Cass Sunstein the White House “Regulatory Czar”. Mr. Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner, in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

Throughout Sunstein's paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice", he maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. The paper makes references to terms such as "distributive justice" several times throughout the 39 page document. In the paper Sunstein says: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," He adds: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”

Sunstein also suggests "If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives". He also maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

Of course, if I am going to post quotes from the Obama administration how could I possibly forget Obama’s former green jobs Czar, Van Jones. He may be gone, but he is definitely not forgotten. Mr. Jones is an invaluable addition to this collection because he cared so little about what he said out loud. His quotes and video statements can still be easily found on the internet, mostly because there is no longer a need to hide them. In the end, it was not his racist statements that white businesses were steering pollution into minority neighborhoods, nor his open admission that he was a communist that forced his resignation from the White House. It wasn’t even unceasing rhetoric about how they would use the farce of “green jobs” to steer billions of dollars to ease, what he considered, racial injustices. He was forced to resign because he was one of the radical fools that signed a petition demanding the Bush administration admit their guilt in concocting the 9/11 attacks so they could launch a war on Islam.

The only reason I feel compelled to mention his quotes now, is because after researching Carol Browner and Cass Sunstein, it is clear that he was not bubbling over with his own idea of what should be. His statements are directly in line with too many of Obama’s other special advisors not to be bullet points in their plan to reshape global politics. For instance, Van Jones said: “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming throw-away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities. It should not just be about recycling things to give them a second life. We should also be gathering up people and giving them a second chance.”

He also said: “All the big ideas for getting us onto a lower carbon trajectory involve a lot of people doing a lot of work, and that's been missing from the conversation. This is a great time to go to the next step and ask, well, who's going to do the work? Who's going to invest in the new technologies? What are ways to get communities wealth, improved health, and expanded job opportunities out of this improved transition?” Both of those quotes sound a lot like Sunstein’s proposals on redistribution and a plan to correct some of the ills that Browner blames on capitalism.

Some may say that wanting to put people to work and provide healthcare might be social programs, but is Mr. Jones really suggesting socialism? Well, read on because he also said "…But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

So there it is in his own words. A green movement should pursue the same steps and stages as the radical movement that nearly brought us to revolution in the mid ‘60s? A green movement that they will push and push, not to transform the energy economy as we were told, but to transform the “whole society”? The idea that this is all being brought about by a multitude of converging crisis’s to force us into drastic action also sounds way too much like Cloward and Piven to be a coincidence.

Neither the Climate Bill, Cap and Trade, the UN accords on Climate Change nor the “green movement” has anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. They have everything to do with seeing America surrender its wealth and production capabilities to give some of those poor, struggling third world nations a chance to grow. This is simply a tool for the transfer of American power, money and industries abroad; to strengthen the UN and other “world governance organizations and prepare the US citizenry for a life securely bound in the Marxist yoke.

Paul

The Obama Plan: Plenty of Change But Little Hope

As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.

Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.

Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.

In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.

Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.

In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.

The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.

Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?

If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?

The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.

Paul

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day, 2009. While this is a National Holiday, vigilance does not sleep because as Thomas Jefferson so clearly pointed out for us, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Van Jones, President Obama’s “green jobs Czar” resigned his position at 2 am on Sunday, September 6, 2009. I’m not even sure how a government official tenders a resignation at 2 am on a weekend but since the White House apparently has enough discretionary funds to pay the salaries of three dozen “special advisors” outside of the Congressional funding apparatus, there must be enough left over to pay for a publically funded 24 hour Czar resignation hotline that is a secretive as the czars themselves.

Truthfully, this administration is very adept in politics, particularly Chicago politics. Triumphs are publically announced at 9 am on Monday mornings while damaging revelations mysteriously dribble out of the White House in the middle of the night during the weekend; a time that they hope no one is looking. That is why we must remain vigilant. There are so many things that they would love to weave into our lives in the darkness of night.

Mr. Jones was the most outspoken and divisive member of this administration. He was a self proclaimed communist with a history of involvement in radical Marxist movements and a log of highly inflammatory racist quotes to punctuate those connections. Mr. Jones’s mindless accusations and his declared intention to use the environmental movement to topple capitalism was the subject of fear among many that took the time to investigate this man’s background.

In the end, it was not the Marxist ties or the race bating comments that brought the end for Mr. Jones. The mainstream press obviously didn’t think it was newsworthy to note that the President had a communist and radical racist in his circle of closest advisors so they simply did not report it. It was the disclosure that he had signed a document in 2001 that demanded the government release the truth of their involvement in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center; in essence, he was a “truther”. “Truthers believe that the US government destroyed the towers and attacked the Pentagon, killing 3000 Americans to further their own geopolitical goals. It was his association with a loony government conspiracy theory that brought Mr. Jones down. This is so reminiscent of the fall of Al Capone.

Al Capone was a known gangster that had a stranglehold on the Chicago area and his crime syndicate had ties with the criminal networks nestled in other major cities. He was known to be a major distributor of illegally manufactured alcohol during prohibition. He was also engaged in prostitution, narcotics, loan sharking, extortion, and murder. In the end, Mr. Capone was convicted and sent to prison for tax evasion, not for the crimes he committed. Law enforcement didn’t really care what mechanism placed him behind bars as long as he was off the streets but it does make a sad statement about our government. One could say that message from government was that Mr. Capone could have done what he wanted as long as he secured the privilege by paying taxes on the proceeds.

Today we celebrate Labor Day. Labor Day in our country is modeled after a Canadian event. A labor dispute in 1870 was being violently repressed. Eventually, these disputes and the methods that were used to suppress them led to the Canadian Trade Union Act that legalized and protected union activities in 1870.

The Canadian celebrations that sprung from the 1870 Trade Unions Act were witnessed by American Labor leader Peter McGuire, during his visit to Toronto. Mr. McGuire was impressed by the idea of a holiday celebrating the workers of that country and returned to New York and began work to organize a labor celebration in this country.

The first Labor Day was celebrated in New York City on September 5, 1882 and was strictly a local affair. It wasn’t until the bloody 1894 Pullman strike that then President Grover Cleveland nationalized the Labor Day holiday as part of an attempt to reconcile the differences between Labor and employers.

Let’s not forget that at that time, the conditions of the workplace were horrid and labor in many industries was considered as disposable as a worn out machine. The labor movements were a direct result of those abuses and sought to bring some measure of fairness and security for those workers. There is no doubt that the labor movement in general was brought on by the philosophies of Karl Marx and the efforts of communists to make the world a workers utopia by destroying the ruling class in Europe and the industrialists here in America.

In Russia they succeeded only because the rule of the Tsar was absolute and brutal. Violent reprisal and revolution was inevitable. In the United States we averted disaster only because it was recognized that labor was an integral part of enterprise, industry and the wealth that sprung from it. If the national economy was to remain vibrant and grow, we had to recognize that the men that worked the factories and mines were as responsible for that growth as the industrialists the created the companies that employed them. The government did much to address the concerns of the workers and established the rules that brought civility to the union bargaining process, safety in the workplace and protections for striking workers against armed suppression of the strikes.

Today, because of the sensibility that was used to address the grievances of labor, Labor Day in America has become another day of hot dogs and apple pie. Jerry Lewis continues to break records for donations to find a cure for Muscular Dystrophy and tomorrow we will all shake off the dust from our day of play and go back to work. Regardless of your political persuasion or your opinion of labor unions, enjoy the day and celebrate the civility with which Americans solve their disagreements.

Tomorrow we continue our work with the third and last part of the First Amendment. The right to assemble.

Paul