The Green Movement - Eco Terror or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".

Paul

Real Un-American Activities

With Tea Parties and Conservative programming now being called seditious and un-American, I thought it would be a good time to discuss true un-American activity and its history. With roots established as far back as 1918, The House Un-American Activities Committee has provided the means for Congressional investigations of subversive activities conducted within or against, the United States. The direct precursors to The House Un-American Activities Committee can be found in the Overman Committee of 1918, the Fish Committee of 1930, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of 1934-1937 and the Special Investigations Committee of 1938-1944.

The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Senator Lee Slater Overman of North Carolina. The Overman Committee operated from September 1918 to June 1919 and investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States. Originally tasked with investigation pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry, the priority shifted after the conclusion of World War One to focus on the affects of Communist Bolshevism in America after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This Committee had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to America during the First Red Scare.

Similarly, the Fish Committee of 1930 pursued the same interests. NY Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, investigated people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster. The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.

In May 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee. It was chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee. Its work was aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity but the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project.

Representative Dies, who was a supporter of the New Deal, eventually withdrew his support for FDR’s far reaching social programs in 1937. The Committee fell under attack by members of the Roosevelt administration after their investigations were found to involve child actress Shirley Temple, who was ten years old at the time. The attacks were an intentional misrepresentation of the Committees work since Miss Temple’s name was only mentioned as it had appeared on a list of Hollywood figures that sent greetings to the Communist-owned French newspaper, Ce Soir. Mr. Dies tried to appear before the public to address this deliberate attempt to discredit the Committee but was curiously refused air time by both CBS and NBC as they feared reprisal from the Roosevelt Administration through use of the FCC.

In 1945, The House Un-American Activities Committee became a standing or “permanent” committee. The Un-American Activities Committee has often been mistakenly identified with the anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953-1954. Although the goals were the same where subversive activities were concerned, Senator McCarthy chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and had no direct involvement with The House Un-American Activities Committee.

After the House Un-American Activities Committee achieved status as a permanent committee, it became more focused on Communist subversive activities. Ironically, Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, would eventually be named in Soviet NKVD (precursor to the KGB) documents as a Soviet agent. Congressmen Dickstein, who had actually assisted in forming this committee to root out German fascists, apparently had not anticipated the change in the targets of committee’s investigations. The allegations remained unproven at that time and Dickstein later served as a Justice on the New York Supreme Court until his death in 1954.

In an interesting development, documents discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. Whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is uncertain and when he left the Committee, the Soviets dropped him from their payroll.

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. Through his position as Chairman of The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator McCarthy made numerous claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere.

His subcommittee held 169 hearings throughout 1953 and 1954. Of the 653 people called by the Committee during a 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Veterans Administration. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.

Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. It is clear that Joe McCarthy faced the same opposition that the House Un-American Activities Committee did but was he wrong?

Recent disclosures point to a Soviet program of demoralization that infused money into key areas of our society to fund groups that would reduce the American resistance to socialist ideals. The Soviets funded labor movements in the 1920’s and ‘30s, which infiltrated the film industry and print news. They also established socialist professors in American universities and funded the anti-war movement against American involvement in Viet Nam.

Periodically, the news is still punctuated with names like Robert Hanson and Aldrich Ames, both if which were convicted of espionage and conspiracy, both of which are currently serving life sentences and both of which were in the employ of the Soviet Union and later, Russia, which serves to prove that this program of demoralization is still being practiced today.

The protests in Pittsburg that erupted into violence at the G20 conference were mostly anti-capitalist factions that acquired their left leaning tilt at the hands of radical professors that are still spreading the disease of socialism. You already know many of the colleges that are famous for this indoctrination by name, such as UCLA Berkeley, Columbia University, Bard College, etc, etc. Just the names invoke a response because the radical teachings in these schools are common knowledge.

Now we have new threats to our society. Since blatant socialism is still met with resistance the new communist social engineers have found a new host to infect; the environmental or “green” movement. Have you noticed that their message has recently changed from fighting pollution to “creating a green economy”? The new environmentalists (Marxist globalists) have presented their earth-saving agenda to the newest generation of indoctrinates with the added urgency that we must do this now or all is lost. What these clandestinely co-opted college students don’t realize is that these plans will do little to improve the environment since they are really crafted to destroy the U.S. economy and food supply; hence, destroying the American citizen’s resistance to socialism as it becomes their only hope for food and warmth.

No, Joe McCarthy isn’t rolling over in his grave and I doubt he would say “I told you so” even if he could. People like Joe McCarthy would have loved nothing more than to have been wrong and to know the nation he loved was safe and sound. If he were alive today he would probably be leading the charge to expose these threats just as he did then. He would be leading the charge to expel those that mean harm to our country not only from the schools, but from all facets of government as well.

Paul

What is Obama's Top Priority?

The President mentioned a whole host of non-descript people that keep saying “slow down” to which Obama commented…”How long must we wait?” So who are these mysterious voices? Republicans have been effectively locked out of the negotiations so it can’t be them. The Tea Party people have been dismissed by this administration as crazy and the polls show that Americans are already angry for being ignored so it can’t be them either. Progressive Democrats are all behind the Obama agenda and are urging immediate action so nope, not them. The moderate Democrats might feign resistance but we now know they are just looking for their buy-out so that roadblock evaporates as soon as the cash is on the table. The secret service keeps the President a comfortable distance from nearly everyone else so I thought perhaps it was the Salahi’s; but they are little more than media hounds and wouldn’t dare risk exposure by taking any side in the discussion.

If Obama weren’t a Progressive radical with a heavy Chicago political background, I might think it were his conscience speaking to him but we all know that Chicago politicians and Progressive radicals have no conscience. With all other possibilities scientifically excluded, that leaves only one voice as the possible suspect; the voice no one in Washington ever mentions….the voice of reason.

I did not find it surprising that Obama didn’t mention the multitude of voices chiding him to accelerate the process; to force legislation before the mid-term elections eliminate the dominance of Congressional Progressives. These voices want healthcare reform with a strong public option because that is the one thing that will bring about their real goal of Socialized medicine within ten years. These voices want Cap and Trade because they know what most Americans don’t. That Cap and Trade is not about saving the planet from global warming but saving the planet from Capitalism. It is a mechanism that will bridle this nation’s ability to further develop domestic energy resources and will complete the migration of manufacturing industries to countries that do not possess the same penchant for self destruction.

We have been discussing those voices for quite some time on the Vigilance Project. The United Nations; George Soros and the multitude of Marxist organizations that he funds through the Tides Foundation; ACORN; The Apollo Alliance; SEIU; G.E. and even though there are many more, let us not forget the Progressives firmly lodged in Congress. Considering the initiatives the President still claims are a priority for the nation, each and every one of these factions are more than adequately represented by this administration.

So why didn’t Obama mention these voices in the State of the Union Address? Because they mirror his own ideas of what this nation should look like before he’s through with it. It’s kind of like Karaoke….It might sound like you’re singing but if you are really quiet, you can hear the original song and artist clearly in the background. When Obama is quiet (he has to sleep sometimes) you can clearly hear the background music in the speeches and interviews of Progressive Democrats, Andy Stern, Jeff Immelt and whispered by all of those radical supporters of the Socialization of America. They are no more dragging Obama to the left than an alcoholic must be dragged to a bar.

The State of the Union Address contained as many contradictions as it did lies. Jobs creation is the administration’s number one priority but we must complete healthcare and pass a comprehensive climate bill; both of which are sited by the business community as creating a climate of uncertainly that has prevented business owners from risking any expansion. The President announced support for developing domestic energy resources in America including nuclear, coal and oil but he has already placed the right people within the EPA that will make sure that can never happen.

Every possible avenue available to the radical environmental movement has been used to indefinitely stall projects that would have developed domestic energy resources in this country. They don’t do this in other countries because we are the only idiots that give them unlimited access to our courts even when the figurehead filing the suit does not reside in the community where the project has been proposed. If the President weren’t merely playing lip service to the development of domestic energy he would be asking Congress to declare the development of these resources vital to the strategic interests on the United States and block interference from both the environmental left and the EPA.

The President announced that the Federal government will fund a high speed rail project because Europe and Japan have taken the lead in high speed rail and we cannot accept second place. Well, high speed rail makes perfect sense in Europe and Japan because they do not have vast tracts of undeveloped land not to mention that many of those nations are barely larger than the state of Texas. We also have the burden of a twelve trillion dollar national debt that White House projections claim will double by the end of his second term and those projections do no include healthcare reform or the passage of a climate bill. To be able to call high speed rail an investment you must first be able to expect a return on that investment. Short of providing a bone for his union friends and of course, GE; there is no return for this so-called investment.

Yesterday the White House announced a plan to provide small business with a five-thousand dollar tax incentive for each new job they create in 2010. In addition, they will forego any increase in the company’s payroll taxes for those new employees. Sounds good right? Not really. The minimum wage established by the Federal government is currently $7.35 per hour. Add payroll taxes and benefits, because we are going to have to provide healthcare and each new employee will cost that company a minimum of $20,000 per year and the tax incentives and relief are a one time shot. That is like saying don’t worry about whether or not you can afford the payments…go ahead and buy that new car and I’ll throw in a tank of gas. Just think how far that will get you!

President Obama has stacked the deck against the American business community and they are not responding to his jobs initiatives or to the dangling carrots of tax breaks because until they can accurately forecast their future tax liabilities, they will not expand their markets and product lines nor add new employees. Unlike the Federal government, business must first ask the question of how they will be able to pay for additional labor or new programs or they will shortly cease to exist as a business.

Curiously, the President has once again proved his arrogance while speaking at a House Republican retreat today in Baltimore. He stood before the crowd and accused Republicans of portraying health care reform as a "Bolshevik plot" and telling their constituents that he is "doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

Er, sorry Mr. President…..that would be me, not the House Republicans. I wouldn’t be saying half of what I have been saying if your administration isn’t pocked with people with socialist and communist backgrounds and if your friends and advisors weren’t recycled 1960’s radicals.

Can you deny that you taught Alinsky in college and then applied those lessons to your community “organizing” techniques in the street of Chicago? Can you deny that your climate Czar, Carol Browner, belonged to an organization (Socialist International) that sought to unify the world under a single Socialist government or that your science Czar, John Holdren, proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization in his writings? Can you deny that your former green jobs Czar, Van Jones openly admitted to being a communist or that your own chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel thinks the First Amendment is overrated? I could go on and on but this is getting repetitious.

About the only thing we haven’t discussed on this subject is the purging of your administration of these pariahs only because you have thus far refused to do that. Without the dismissal of the radicals within your administration and circle of advisors, I can only conclude that your aim is to continue to foment support for a Bolshevik plot to take over the healthcare system and are indeed actively pursuing a path that will lead to the destruction of the Constitution of the United States and our Capitalist financial system.

Paul

Will the 2010 Elections be Enough?

I wonder if the 2010 elections will be enough. After all, it seems like anyone we have ever sent to Congress have all succumbed to the same disease. It’s as though power is a virus to which there is no immunity or cure. Even those that have been rejected still seek that alluring aroma of power. In addition to the great and near great, there is that whole undercurrent of real power players; the dark overlords that hold the strings of our political puppets. They live in the shadows and create grand strategies for power on a global scale using the greed of our politicians to achieve their nefarious goals. To them, Congress is but a small outpost and the Presidency is a mere pawn in a much larger game.

After all, who benefits from the legislation that this historically liberal administration has passed or proposed? The bank bailout was passed because the banking system appeared to be on the verge of collapse and that would have stalled the Progressive’s agenda for years. In fact, the banks couldn’t have been nearly as damaged as they first appeared since many of them raced to pay back the TARP money as soon as they found out that the executive salaries of companies that received TARP money would be severely curtailed. Instant liquidity…isn’t that amazing! Of course Freddie and Fanny are the exception and in fact, are seeking hundreds of billions more but then again, they have been latched on to the public teat for years.

Then we have healthcare legislation. It’s been changed at a least a half dozen times, the last two times, behind closed doors and hidden from all but a select few. Still, the proponents argue that we don’t have to debate this bill any more since it has already been in debate for months. Well the general issues may have, but the substantive changes made by Harry Reid and the President’s staff haven’t and most of our illustrious Senators had never been granted the courtesy of even seeing the manager’s amendment (Reid’s work) until after they were forced to vote on it.

The biggest winner would be the Federal government. It is no secret that the Progressives in Congress are still pursuing the utopian dreams of FDR through the socialization of America. Medicare and Medicaid were bankrupting the Federal government just as the opponents of these programs said they would back in 1965. Of course there was the “fix” in 1968 that placed Social Security “on budget” then robbed the assets from the trust fund to cover the shortages in Medicare/Medicaid and now all three of these programs are broke. If healthcare does not pass, the government may have to concede failure and admit their gross mismanagement; something that does not help the cause of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that wants more and more radical social programs, not fewer.

It is clear that Andy Stern and SEIU played a major part in crafting at least some of the provisions in this bill so I would have to say they are also one of the big winners if this and several other major bills pass. Under this bill, the only hospitals that are eligible to receive funds for nurse training are those that are unionized. The President already signed an Executive Order earlier this year giving union contractors preference in government contracts with a value of $25 million or more and that is clearly another bone for Andy boy. At least we know some of the reasons that Andy Stern had visited the White House nearly two dozen times since Obama’s inauguration.

There is also proposed legislation for a brand new amnesty program for illegal immigrants. SEIU has admitted that substantial portions of its membership are so-called “undocumented workers” (illegal immigrants) and “POOF”, Congress proposes legislation to make that all better for our good friend Andy. Why is it that people employing illegal immigrants are subject to fines and/or jail but unions can represent those same illegals with impunity? Andy Stern is clearly one of those people behind the scenes with global aspirations and he is using his membership’s dues to fund the political campaigns of anyone that will help him achieve those goals. Quoting a page from the Communist Manifesto, Stern said in an interview that “Workers of the world unite is no longer a slogan”, it is what Stern and the SEIU believe their future is. A global union poised to represent a global workforce in a world dominated by a global government.

One of the displaced power mongers is Al Gore. Gore was so close to becoming President in 2000 that he still has the taste of inaugural champagne in his mouth. I suspect that is what keeps Al Gore on center stage shouting about climate change while the rest of the world reads how scientists conspired to corrupt the data and hide the proof that there is no such thing as global warming.

Al Gore actually resides in both camps and in addition to his unsatisfied appetite for power, has a mercenary reason for his love of climate change. He is heavily invested in a software company that would become a key provider in greenhouse gas tracking software that would be required under cap and trade. If this draconian legislation passes, Gore and the rest of his investment group would become billionaires. Gore’s investment company is also heavily involved with the Chicago climate exchange; North America’s only private exchange for carbon credits as well as five other so-called, greenhouse gases. Gore is not alone; a certain university professor that preferred to teach Saul Alinsky theory (Barack Obama) was also involved in the creation of the Chicago exchange and so was Maurice Strong. Who is Maurice Strong?

Maurice Strong is a Canadian ex-patriot and petroleum entrepreneur who was president of Power Corporation until 1966. Strong was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the early 1970’s before becoming the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. Strong is also one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations’ involvement in world affairs and most of his recent affairs reflect those beliefs.

Strong also chaired the U.N.’s University for Peace, an international education chartered through the UN and able to grant masters and doctoral degrees. The educational programs are centered around the peace and security objectives of the United Nations so I am sure that there is a great deal of emphasis on global governance. The University of Peace also offers short courses to non-registered students on subjects that include the undeniably Socialist curriculum of Nonprofit Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector, and Educating in the 21st Century. We wouldn’t want them to miss the opportunity to co-opt the unfortunate stooges that can’t afford the regular tuition, now would we?

Strong was one of the heads that rolled in 2005 during the U.N.’s “oil for food” scandal. Oil for Food was a program that was ultimately found to be laced with corruption as U.N. officials were accused of taking bribes to mold the program to favor Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. A check for nearly a million dollars was found to have been issued from a Jordanian Bank made out to an “M. Strong” and hand delivered by South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park. The check was ultimately endorsed by Maurice Strong who was then, The U.N. Envoy to South Korea. Amid the scandal, Strong stepped down from his position saying he would sideline himself “until the cloud was lifted” but Strong was never returned to his former position.

Maurice Strong is one of the increasing numbers of people with questionable ties to the United Nations that is considered an environmentalist. Of course! After all, Socialist radicals had already identified the environmental movement as the key vehicle to achieve their goals. He began his involvement during the first Earth Day in 1970 and has been tinkering around with it ever since. In fact, Strong was one of the architects of the first UN climate conferences held in Stockholm. Titled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”, the conference clearly endorsed the need for a global authority because the threat of man-made climate change is international.

Of course in 1971, the climate panels in the UN were screaming “Ice Age” and the impending crisis was that man’s pollution was cooling the globe so much so that much of the northern hemisphere would be under a mile of ice by the end of the century. One would think that the cry of “wolf” back then would have discredited the climate alarmists for good but they apparently have too much invested in this strategy to let something like a failed climate theory stop them now.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Strong never did return to Canada. He now resides in Beijing China and has been orchestrating his climate chaos from there. Another curious thing is that if the United States enacts cap and trade and the other European powers sign on to the U.N.’s treaty on climate; that would leave China in a very strong position to be the next emerging Super Power as the West’s economic situation atrophies. Naw; it’s just a coincidence that Strong lives in China now in a gated community with armed guards protecting the entrances.

Paul

Newsweek's Curious Adoration of Al Gore

Barack Obama is an unqualified disaster so rather than accept fact, Newsweek (or is it News-Weak?) is taking a trip down memory lane so they can play “What if Gore won the 2000 election?” In what may be the most idiotic article to ever to stain the pages of that Liberal rag-sheet, News-weak has decided to imagine a fantasy timeline to give us a glimpse of what a Gore Presidency would look like.

We know Liberals are all about fantasy. After all, in a Liberal’s world, hard work and research just can’t yield the concrete results that wearing ribbons do. If they could only convince all Americans to wear the appropriate ribbon of awareness, think how much human suffering would vanish overnight. In fact, the ribbons possess so much power; Liberal’s would rather wear those than waste their money on funding established research or support centers. That is unless they are one of those filthy rich liberals. In that case, they use their money to create foundations; accepting donations to raise awareness among the massive population of insensitive people that do not wear ribbons.

The other thing Liberals love to do is dream about the utopian society they could create if last remnants of capitalism were finally swept away and the progressive (Marxist) agenda were realized in totality. Since Obama clearly can’t deliver on that, they did the next best thing and created a dream world where Bush was defeated and Gore took his rightful place as the 43rd President of the United States.

In David Rakoff's dream world, 9-11 never happened because Gore took the appropriate steps to prevent it and Gore’s attention to the environment, particularly the restoration of wetlands and erosion prevention on the gulf coast, mitigated the severity of Katrina and the swift response of the Federal government under Gore, prevented countless deaths and needless devastation. Obama maybe a weak and ineffectual Liberal but he is still a Liberal so they just couldn’t ignore him. In Rakoff's world, Gore would eventually name Obama as a Supreme Court Justice.

The piece begins by eluding all sense of Constitutional law as the United States, under Gore, finally becomes party to the Kyoto Protocol and passes a comprehensive energy bill. Somehow, the mystical powers of Al Gore can even circumvent the Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify our treaties with a 2/3 majority, something that could not happen with Kyoto and would not happen even if Copenhagen managed to cobble an agreement together within the next few days. The comprehensive energy agreement is also a work of fiction since that was proclaimed dead on arrival with democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a President that is willing to sign it. But this is a work of fantasy so to hell with logic and law….let’s dream on

At the ceremony to mark the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, President Gore announces ground breaking for high speed maglev rail along the Eastern Seaboard. Old rail cars would be sunk offshore to create artificial reefs and by September 2009, the system is opened, offering high speed rail service from Portland, Maine to Jacksonville, Florida. Of course, since Al Gore is the patron saint of the religion of Climatology, he would have no problem at all persuading the eco-fascists that the rail line is an important step in the “greening” of America….or would he?

Environmental activists have fought every major project, green or otherwise, under the banner of protecting the diversity of species and to restore the natural beauty of a planet untouched by human activity. If the project was to replace an existing system rail by rail and tie by tie, I am sure they would find some foul species of hairless mouse that has called the existing rail line home. Even if none were found, they would still sue to force us to do another one of those endless environmental impact studies before the basic route survey could even begin. Damn! Those little details keep ruining the plot.

The story continues with Gore’s superior intellect being able to decipher a disjointed and seemingly meaningless string of information (which is all that was left of our intelligence gathering capabilities after Clinton-Gore gutted the system) whereby he discovers a plot crafted by Osama Bin Laden to attack the United States. Despite his historical disdain for the military and his repeated assertions that war is an option only needed by those that fail at diplomacy, Gore races to the nearest phone booth and dons his “Commander in Chief” Underoos before ordering preemptive strategic bombing strikes on Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border, averting the disaster of 9-11 altogether.

Just to imply the petty hardships that a victorious Al Gore would have to contend with as President, Rakoff adds that President Gore signs the Patriot Act to provide an additional measure of security for the country but since he is not George Bush, the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. He also says that a Gore administration would be ridiculed and denigrated at every turn which I take as more of a slap at Obama than a commentary on Gore. In Mr. Rakoff’s world, Gore is unaffected by his critics; making the hard decisions that he apparently feels Mr. Obama is incapable of.

To further show his fierce determination and Gore’s iron will, when Vice President Joe Lieberman speaks out against healthcare reform, Gore demands, and gets, his resignation which only proves the adolescence of the author. When this article was written, Lieberman was still holding out on healthcare so he apparently felt compelled to throw a few literary rocks at him. After all, since Lieberman is obviously not part of the collective mind, he must be eliminated, even in a fantasy administration. Of course, Hillary Clinton is named as Lieberman’s replacement. Colin Powell steps down as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton assumes that position.

Just to prove that this is indeed, OZ and not a work of fact driven speculation; Gore supposedly signs a bill providing tax cuts equaling $1.35 trillion dollars over ten years to America’s wealthiest citizens, drawing harsh criticism from both the left and the right. He also faces the nation during his 2002 State of the Union address and singles out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as having goals similar to the Axis powers of World War II.

Fear not…all ends well with King Al Gore the first. He is eventually recognized for his bold actions and foresight in preventing not only an imminent attack on the US by fundamentalist terrorists but in preventing catastrophe through his environmental restoration of the Gulf of Mexico coast line, which saved thousands of lives and billions in property damage. The number of Gore’s successes are eventually criticized in the Senate because the sheer amount of time they have to spend commending this President’s actions are seen as distracting the Senate from their primary purpose.

Of course no story in News-Weak would be complete if it didn’t trash Bush too. Now that Gore has completed his two terms, it is finally Hillary Clinton’s turn. The Democratic ticket for 2008 is Hillary Clinton with her mate and running mate, Bill. Just as strange is the notion that George Bush throws his hat in the ring in a bid to finally capture his second term with brother Jeb as his running mate. Rakoff suggests that George Bush’s fortunes begin to turn after a televised and tearful interview about his alcoholism with Dr. Drew Pinsky; a condition that Bush supposedly falls pray to after his 2000 loss to Gore.

Really? Apparently Mr. Rakoff is under the delusion that Al Gore would have been able to have see what dozens of experts could not, where Islamic terror is concerned. Much like the followers of Nostradamus, the snippets of information about Bin Laden’s activities could only have been reasonably connected after the attack when the names and countries of origin of the perpetrators were known. Similarly, Rakoff assumes that Gore would have found a stomach for military action if the need arose and that he would even care about the environment if he were not in a position to personally accrue millions of dollars by exploiting the fears of the Eco-weirdoes on a national level.

No, Gore is a lack-luster and unpolished imitation of a politician frustrated by his failed bid for the Presidency. His lack of substance and personality is why he was not elected in spite of every felonious act of voter fraud committed by the left.

Now that climate-gate has proven the fraud of environmental extremism and may even be the largest hoax of the century, perhaps Gore will finally find some other kind of snake oil to peddle. Maybe he can retire to a local park and sell snow cones this summer to help in the fight against seasonal global warming?

Paul

What is the "Earth Crisis" This Time?

Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare bill Nancy Pelosi seems hell bent on passing this week, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the climate bill will create for all Americans. Well, almost all Americans. It appears that Al Gore and his closest friends are prepared through their investments, to turn millions into billions once this bill has passed into law.

But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have apparently been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.

I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.

If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.

Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.

U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.

Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people are, and remain to be. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is a created event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?

Paul

The Green Movement: Eco-Terrorism or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability.

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level."

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on globalization and critiques of capitalism. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, eolic1, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Currently, half a million acres of fertile farmland have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will wield that power.

Paul

Green is the New Red - Marxists in the Environmental Movement

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. Monday we will 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.

One would think that Data suggesting that global warming was not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon should be seriously considered before we enact legislation that will damage industry in the U.S. and strain our already challenged economy. In fact, that data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures peaked in 1989 and already is showing signs of subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on.

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 Climate Bill. 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.

Monday we will look at the other organizations and people that are because they are the soldiers in the fight to bring the message to you. They are the ones that fill your children with fear about the environment and how wrong America is for using so much when others have so little.

Paul

The Story of Stuff

The Story of Stuff is a film based on a story by Annie Leonard. Annie Leonard is a critic of excessive consumerism and is most known for this animated film about the life-cycle of material goods.

The film is little more than an anti-capitalist tome designed to convince its viewers that America not only consumes more than its fair share of the planets resources, but we are happily destroying entire third world nations, eco-systems and even people to feed our insatiable appetite for “stuff”. The film makes these assumptions using an almost child-like pursuit of half truths to make its case and is just another new wave, radical environmentalist view of the evils of the American lifestyle. In previous posts I have discussed that the reason why the environmental movement has become so anti-American and so anti-Capitalist is because the environmental movement has been infiltrated and is in fact, the new home of Marxist and Globalist front groups.

The film starts with the assertion that we spend too much on defense, so much so that even though she chose to use the figure of a person to represent the government, she was tempted to use a tank instead. It then goes on to explain that although we only have 5% of the world’s population, we consume 30% of the planets resources. In fact, according Ms. Leonard, we have consumed all of our own resources so we are now “trashing” foreign lands and exploiting foreign peoples to take their resources. She was nice enough to explain that it’s not really our fault because those evil American businesses make us watch all those advertisements that force us to go out and buy and buy and buy and it’s that rampant consumerism that drives the search for even more resources.

The film continues to explain that the cycle that keeps products on our store shelves blindly pollutes the planet, drives people out of their ancestral lands directly into abusive jobs in deadly cities and the pollution that is created to access the resources is just the tip of the iceberg as the manufacturing process wantonly dumps more pollutants into the environment and then those rotten thoughtless American consumers use these products and just dispose of them without a care in the world as to where the trash goes in the end.

The “Story of Stuff” is making its rounds through the education system in the United States in yet another attempt to indoctrinate our youth into liberal and progressive beliefs; beliefs that they are concerned are not being pursued by these poor children’s parents. Of course not all schools have been drawn into this, at least not yet. It is something that is still limited to the areas that are liberal strongholds such as the northeast, California, Oregon, Washington, Chicago, etc. However, now that the President has made some fairly radical appointments in the Federal education agencies, we may see materials like this being “approved” for use or worse, mandated as a requirement of receiving Federal education funds. As long as that is a possibility then it is fair to ask “Who is Annie Leonard, what is her background and who funded this movie?”
.
Annie Leonard was born 1964 in Seattle, Washington. She went to college in New York at the liberal arts citadel, Barnard College. Leonard has an undergraduate degree from Barnard College and a graduate degree from Cornell University in city and regional planning. She and a friend created GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives). She created the hour-long Story of Stuff originally as a talk and was asked many times to make a movie. Finally she made and also stars in, the 20 minute film The Story of Stuff, a web-based documentary about the life-cycle of goods and services.

Leonard is coordinator of GAIA and serves on the boards of International Forum for Globalization and the Environmental Health Fund. She previously held positions with Health Care Without Harm, Essential Information and Greenpeace International, and is currently coordinator of the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption. In 1992 she testified before the US Congress on the topic of international waste trafficking.

Isn’t it interesting that someone who claims to be a mere environmentalist is involved so deeply in this many political movements, some of which are dedicated to the globalization of world governance? If you recall, Carol Browner, President Obama’s “Climate Czar” and another so-called environmentalist, was found to have ties with “Socialist International”. Ms. Browner was one of 14 members on their “Commission for a Sustainable World Society”. This group was also anti-American and anti-Capitalist and their principal mandate was to support reforms that would bring about “world governance”; in other words, a single all-powerful one world government. Gee….what a coincidence!

The production of the “Story of Stuff” was made possible with grant money from the Tides Center. The Tides Center is a non-profit organization in the United States which provides grants for progressive groups. Tides Center is classified a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization by the IRS. The Tides organization is based in San Francisco and is administratively linked to, but separate from the Tides Foundation. Tides Center and Tides Foundation are part of a family of organizations linked by a commitment to social change, innovation, and responsible stewardship of resources.

Tides Center’s roots lie in the Tides Foundation, founded by Drummond Pike in 1976. In 1977, the Tides Foundation began working with initiative campaigns, an arrangement that was formalized into the Projects Program in 1979. In 1996, this program became Tides Center, an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Since 1996, Tides Center has provided fiscal sponsorship to over 800 projects with combined revenues of over $700 million, and has worked with well over 1000 projects since the first days as the Projects Program.

Drummond Pike, a former 1960’s Vietnam War protestor and activist, is the CEO of Tides where he used ideas he created to fund programs and projects well outside the mainstream of thought in the United States through the use of donor advised funds. Donor advised funds allowed for the transfer of third party donations so that people that could be politically harmed by a connection with a radical group could use the Tides Foundation to act as a buffer between the donor and the eventual recipient. How expedient.

Most people have never heard of the Tides Foundation but you have certainly heard of some of their “donors”. George Soros, David Fenton and Wade Rathke are just a few. Yes, that is the same Wade Rathke that was the founder of ACORN, another squeaky clean example of progressive social conciseness and a devout follower of the Cloward-Pivens Strategy. Similarly, some of the recipients of Tides grants may ring a bell. The Apollo Alliance (one of the crafters of the current stimulus bill), The Campaign to Defend the Constitution (an on-line group created to expand the separation of Church and State to counter what they perceived was the growing power of the religious right) and Traction (a social network for 20-something and 30-something leftists to promote progressive ideals).

The Apollo Alliance may be the most recognizable among the names of grant recipients. If you recall, Van Jones was a member of the Apollo Alliance and the chairman of their New York office is Jeff Jones, one of the co-founders of the Weather Underground and I’m sure you remember them.

People may wonder what the big deal is about schools using “The Story of Stuff”. After all, if couldn’t hurt to promote taking care of the environment. If that was all this was about, I might agree but that is not the whole story of “The Story of Stuff.” It is an assault on Capitalism and America by people whose ultimate goal is eliminating the only the only roadblock left to a global socialist “new world order”. Before the new can take root, the old must be eliminated and their plan is to cripple our economy through the use of devastating environmental restrictions forced on our industries and our people.

Have you noticed that the only nations where sufficient pressure has been brought to bear to pass these insane “greenhouse gas” reduction acts has been in democratic industrial nations? If you take the time to connect the dots; to research the people that are behind these movements and the stated goals of the organizations they belong to, we can only arrive at one conclusion. This is not a loose movement of un-washed tree huggers; it is an orchestrated and well coordinated attack by groups that are seeking to fundamentally change the face of global politics.
Paul