Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare that the administration recently forced through Congress, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill, recently renamed “The American Power Act”, as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the American Power Act will mean 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 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 is 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 were then, and remain to be now. 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 nothing more than a concocted event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard; not suppressed. 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
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
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".
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
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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.
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
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Real Conference in Copenhagen
Copenhagen looks like it may end up being “Nopenhagen” by the time the negotiations are concluded. China has been targeted as the nation that has brought the process to a halt; that is unless you speak to representatives of Socialist nations in which case it is the fault of America and her Capitalist stooges. Oh if that were only true!
In the latest round of negotiations, China said they would enter a non-binding agreement to reduce their CO2 emissions but has abjectly refused to allow access for international verification of that reduction. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would enter into a climate treaty and would contribute to a $100 billion dollar per year fund to assist developing nations in creating environmentally sound industry and infrastructure provided that the agreement among developed nations was binding and the emission reductions were verifiable.
While some called Hillary’s comments about the prerequisite of a binding and verifiable treaty before the U.S. would participate, an overt jab at China, I have a different take on that. I believe that was the first indication that the administration is beginning to realize that there is no public support for a climate treaty and that the legislation required to meet the President’s optimistic goals of greenhouse gas reduction would be impossible to pass with our current economic challenges.
The world held it’s breath as our fearless leader arrived in Copenhagen last night. No, they really didn’t but since Obama loves to hear stuff like that I figured I would throw it in anyway. Intent on achieving something after spending so much taxpayer money to get there, the big “O” changed his schedule to attend an emergency meeting to try to broker a last minute deal. This time it was China’s turn to take a jab at us by sending the Vice Foreign Minister to the meeting instead of a senior official. Vice Foreign Minister Yafei’s power within the Chinese government is equivalent to that of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Salvation Army. While Yafie can speak about his government’s position in matters of State, he cannot negotiate nor agree to treaties on China’s behalf. Clearly, China does not have the same awe for Obama that SEIU, ACORN or dozens of other American parasites do, and they have no problem showing it.
The so-called, developing nations really don’t give a damn about the harsh criticism that global warming is now under and could care less about the trickery and slight of hand used to create the science behind it; they want our money. In fact, the principal spokesmen for the developing nations stated quite firmly that $100 billion a year isn’t enough and they want $200 billion; which is the U.N. equivalent of “That’s a nice planet you got there pal…It would be a shame if something was to happen to it.” I haven’t seen this kind of outright criminal extortion since they read the transcripts of John Gotti’s conversations during his racketeering trial.
These “developing” nations, for the most part, have no industry but war with each other. Many are dictatorships that already use charitable food programs to cultivate their own power so why would anyone believe a windfall from climate agreements would go to anything besides the numbered bank accounts of the potentates that have already emptied their own treasuries? It seems to me that denying them this slush fund would go a lot further at keeping those nations green than giving them the funds to buy more military equipment and golden toilets.
On a far more serious note, the true nature and depth of the climate debate is slowly being uncovered in Copenhagen for all to see. Let’s start with the obvious hypocrisy of the leaders of the member nations. The coverage of the arriving delegates included some details that would not be unusual if this were not a conference on reducing the global emission of greenhouse gas; but it is. There were hundreds of private jets and thousands of limousines just to bring the delegates to the conference; culminating with Obama arriving at the last minute on his Boeing 747.
In fact, Copenhagen did not have enough limousines to transport the delegates so they had to bring in hundreds more from bordering countries. If they absolutely had to attend, why couldn’t they “green” the conference and share a bus from the airport to the conference center? Could it be that Copenhagen, the host city of the Climate Conference, has more limousines than buses? I know Paul Miller at Arizona Bus Sales has a great inventory of buses that should be part of any real climate conference…call him and park the limos; at least make it appear that you are environmentally savvy. Imagine the contribution that using one bus instead of fifty limousines would make towards the goal of greenhouse gas reduction. Why it might even lend some legitimacy to the conference!
In sheer irony, the average American would probably have to live more than a thousand years to equal the “carbon footprint” produced by just transporting the delegates to the climate conference. Isn’t funny how the people that are most involved with leading the charge on global warming love to use private planes and limousines; arguably the most inefficient and ecologically harmful way to travel? Al Gore refused to comment on that observation as he boarded his private jet, giving us the appearance that we are not worthy of an answer and adding the charge of elitist to hypocrite.
Of course, if the member nations were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they would have teleconferenced instead but then they would miss all of the opulence and splendor that comes with being a visiting head of state; it appears they are more interested in the conference parties than being a part of the conference. Despite the best effort of Copenhagen’s mayor prior to the conference, I’m sure there was an appreciable increase in CO2 emissions from the “red light district” too, as delegates produced billowing clouds of heavy breathing far from the critics at home. To add insult to injury, I’m sure they got there by limousine too.
The most disturbing revelation of the conference came from the speech that Hugo Chavez made and the standing ovation he received for spouting out more anti-capitalist / pro-Marxist rhetoric. Mr. Chavez took the podium and said:
“One could say, Mr. President, that a ghost is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a ghost is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that ghost walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this ghost is a terrible ghost almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the ghost, almost nobody wants to mention it. It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.
Socialism, the other ghost Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-ghost. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt.”
Hugo Chavez
Thank You Mr. Chavez, for making my point. Global warming is not about warming at all, but about the global spread of Marxism. Climate change is not about the climate, it is about a forced change in political ideology. The only reason why our government is playing along with this now is that Democrats control the Congress, Progressive Marxists control the Democrats and the current President is, after all, a former Democratic Congressman and a Progressive Marxist. Some of Obama’s advisors like Carol Browner, belonged to Socialist International, a group dedicated to the creation of a global government under Marxist ideals. Van Jones, Obama’s former green jobs Czar was a self proclaimed and admitted Communist. Cass Sunstein promotes the use of climate legislation to redistribute American wealth and industry to other nations and John Holdren believes we should take drastic steps including forced sterilization and abortion to reduce earth’s population. Everyone in the Obama administration speaks of the world first and America second, exemplifying their real agenda.
In short, the inmates are running the asylum and the Marxist globalists smell blood in the water. They believe that with Obama’s help, the Capitalist pillars that support America will crumble and then we can enter a new era, complete with a single world government that will spread earth’s resources and man’s wealth in an equal, but very thin blanket. Of course our jet setting Copenhagen delegates will be exempt from that marginalized existence just as they are now. The elite will never suffer, especially if a day comes when they have control of everything you used to own.
Paul
In the latest round of negotiations, China said they would enter a non-binding agreement to reduce their CO2 emissions but has abjectly refused to allow access for international verification of that reduction. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would enter into a climate treaty and would contribute to a $100 billion dollar per year fund to assist developing nations in creating environmentally sound industry and infrastructure provided that the agreement among developed nations was binding and the emission reductions were verifiable.
While some called Hillary’s comments about the prerequisite of a binding and verifiable treaty before the U.S. would participate, an overt jab at China, I have a different take on that. I believe that was the first indication that the administration is beginning to realize that there is no public support for a climate treaty and that the legislation required to meet the President’s optimistic goals of greenhouse gas reduction would be impossible to pass with our current economic challenges.
The world held it’s breath as our fearless leader arrived in Copenhagen last night. No, they really didn’t but since Obama loves to hear stuff like that I figured I would throw it in anyway. Intent on achieving something after spending so much taxpayer money to get there, the big “O” changed his schedule to attend an emergency meeting to try to broker a last minute deal. This time it was China’s turn to take a jab at us by sending the Vice Foreign Minister to the meeting instead of a senior official. Vice Foreign Minister Yafei’s power within the Chinese government is equivalent to that of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Salvation Army. While Yafie can speak about his government’s position in matters of State, he cannot negotiate nor agree to treaties on China’s behalf. Clearly, China does not have the same awe for Obama that SEIU, ACORN or dozens of other American parasites do, and they have no problem showing it.
The so-called, developing nations really don’t give a damn about the harsh criticism that global warming is now under and could care less about the trickery and slight of hand used to create the science behind it; they want our money. In fact, the principal spokesmen for the developing nations stated quite firmly that $100 billion a year isn’t enough and they want $200 billion; which is the U.N. equivalent of “That’s a nice planet you got there pal…It would be a shame if something was to happen to it.” I haven’t seen this kind of outright criminal extortion since they read the transcripts of John Gotti’s conversations during his racketeering trial.
These “developing” nations, for the most part, have no industry but war with each other. Many are dictatorships that already use charitable food programs to cultivate their own power so why would anyone believe a windfall from climate agreements would go to anything besides the numbered bank accounts of the potentates that have already emptied their own treasuries? It seems to me that denying them this slush fund would go a lot further at keeping those nations green than giving them the funds to buy more military equipment and golden toilets.
On a far more serious note, the true nature and depth of the climate debate is slowly being uncovered in Copenhagen for all to see. Let’s start with the obvious hypocrisy of the leaders of the member nations. The coverage of the arriving delegates included some details that would not be unusual if this were not a conference on reducing the global emission of greenhouse gas; but it is. There were hundreds of private jets and thousands of limousines just to bring the delegates to the conference; culminating with Obama arriving at the last minute on his Boeing 747.
In fact, Copenhagen did not have enough limousines to transport the delegates so they had to bring in hundreds more from bordering countries. If they absolutely had to attend, why couldn’t they “green” the conference and share a bus from the airport to the conference center? Could it be that Copenhagen, the host city of the Climate Conference, has more limousines than buses? I know Paul Miller at Arizona Bus Sales has a great inventory of buses that should be part of any real climate conference…call him and park the limos; at least make it appear that you are environmentally savvy. Imagine the contribution that using one bus instead of fifty limousines would make towards the goal of greenhouse gas reduction. Why it might even lend some legitimacy to the conference!
In sheer irony, the average American would probably have to live more than a thousand years to equal the “carbon footprint” produced by just transporting the delegates to the climate conference. Isn’t funny how the people that are most involved with leading the charge on global warming love to use private planes and limousines; arguably the most inefficient and ecologically harmful way to travel? Al Gore refused to comment on that observation as he boarded his private jet, giving us the appearance that we are not worthy of an answer and adding the charge of elitist to hypocrite.
Of course, if the member nations were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they would have teleconferenced instead but then they would miss all of the opulence and splendor that comes with being a visiting head of state; it appears they are more interested in the conference parties than being a part of the conference. Despite the best effort of Copenhagen’s mayor prior to the conference, I’m sure there was an appreciable increase in CO2 emissions from the “red light district” too, as delegates produced billowing clouds of heavy breathing far from the critics at home. To add insult to injury, I’m sure they got there by limousine too.
The most disturbing revelation of the conference came from the speech that Hugo Chavez made and the standing ovation he received for spouting out more anti-capitalist / pro-Marxist rhetoric. Mr. Chavez took the podium and said:
“One could say, Mr. President, that a ghost is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a ghost is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that ghost walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this ghost is a terrible ghost almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the ghost, almost nobody wants to mention it. It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.
Socialism, the other ghost Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-ghost. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt.”
Hugo Chavez
Thank You Mr. Chavez, for making my point. Global warming is not about warming at all, but about the global spread of Marxism. Climate change is not about the climate, it is about a forced change in political ideology. The only reason why our government is playing along with this now is that Democrats control the Congress, Progressive Marxists control the Democrats and the current President is, after all, a former Democratic Congressman and a Progressive Marxist. Some of Obama’s advisors like Carol Browner, belonged to Socialist International, a group dedicated to the creation of a global government under Marxist ideals. Van Jones, Obama’s former green jobs Czar was a self proclaimed and admitted Communist. Cass Sunstein promotes the use of climate legislation to redistribute American wealth and industry to other nations and John Holdren believes we should take drastic steps including forced sterilization and abortion to reduce earth’s population. Everyone in the Obama administration speaks of the world first and America second, exemplifying their real agenda.
In short, the inmates are running the asylum and the Marxist globalists smell blood in the water. They believe that with Obama’s help, the Capitalist pillars that support America will crumble and then we can enter a new era, complete with a single world government that will spread earth’s resources and man’s wealth in an equal, but very thin blanket. Of course our jet setting Copenhagen delegates will be exempt from that marginalized existence just as they are now. The elite will never suffer, especially if a day comes when they have control of everything you used to own.
Paul
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
NASA-Gate? More evidence of climate foul play
What's become known as "Climate-gate" involving Phil Jones of the CRU, may be about to explode right here at home. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA by the end of this year if the agency doesn't honor his Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for information on how and why its climate numbers have been consistently adjusted for errors.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
NASA has been stonewalling any effort to obtain their climate data for over two years blaming oil and coal companies for trying to discredit their reports. Jim Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not only refused to release his data to global warming naysayers but to other researchers as well; a curious strategy for someone that claims to have found the smoking gun linking global warming to the activities of man. One must remember that even though they wear the NASA logo, the GISS is located in the liberal bastion of Colombia University, one of Obama’s support centers for his socialist and globalist policies. Through Columbia’s collection of think tanks on public policy and political science, they have collectively endorsed nearly every ideological pursuit of this President and his radical inner circle of czars.
Hanson and NASA may have a good reason to try to shift public attention away from their “work” and onto the people that question the science behind the claims of global warming; after all….
1- NASA’s James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country's hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest despite authoritative climate data collected by other government agencies that refute those claims.
2- NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest; in fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.
3- Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
4- Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October's readings at all; figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Is Hansen, like his British counterpart Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks the Investor’s Business Daily? Hansen has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues, asks IBD?
Michael Mann was also implicated in the Climate-gate scandal, his name appearing in messages from Phil Jones, suggesting that damaging e-mails and data be deleted before any Freedom of Information Act requests could be processed. Fortunately for the western world, those scandalous e-mails were released by a yet, unknown, whistleblower. Mann’s e-mails contain his ideas to discredit skeptics of global warming by downgrading the status of scientific journals that publish dissenting views. The idea being that if those journals are no longer considered “peer reviews” then the dissenting views no longer possess scientific credibility.
Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. Much of Mann’s work including his famous “hockey stick graphs” appeared prominently in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Sources claim that Mann specifically selected tree rings that enhanced his theory of global warming and ignored those that didn’t fit his climate model. The “hockey stick” graph that showed a sharp rise in global temperatures beginning with the industrial revolution is apparently the result of the careful selection of data to reinforce a pre-determined model and is not a graph based on the actual compilation of data from a complete and unfiltered source.
While NOAA’s data disproves many of NASA’s climate reports, they are not completely innocent themselves. NOAA recently removed satellite data input into their model of ocean temperatures and boasted that the move showed an immediate jump of two tenths of a degree Celsius in ocean temperature readings. Somehow, NOAA does not see the exclusion of real data previously used to refine the accuracy of their computer model as manipulation. I find that troubling that since the importation of real data did not show the warming they predicted, they simply stopped using real data. In fact, some evidence has recently appeared that indicates that NOAA embarked on its own mission to silence climate critics using Mann’s idea of discrediting peer reviews that contain contradictory analysis.
So why would government agencies intentionally misrepresent scientific data? Well, the economy has certainly turned the heat up on law makers to trim the Federal budget. Now that climate alarmists like Al Gore, The IPCC and the UN have stated how sweeping climate initiatives are key to the survival of the planet; any government agency that performs climate research is guaranteed billions in funding at a time when they would ordinarily be struggling to validate their very existence. Funding, like drugs, can make the addict say or do anything to guarantee another dose and an agencies research that supports a President’s chosen agenda is likely to receive more funding that those results that do not.
Then there are the Phil Jones’s, the James Hanson’s and the Michael Mann’s of the world. Their religious devotion to the theory of global warming is obviously no longer a search for truth; it is however, the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Climate change skeptics, in their eyes, are heretics that must confess their sins or be destroyed. The Church imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life because his science disputed established doctrine. He looked through his newly created telescope and saw moons orbiting Saturn. Church teachings said that the Earth was the center of the Universe but Galileo speculated that this could not be true if moons were circling other planets. Much like the CRU or the IPCC, the Church was not interested in Galileo’s evidence or in a true understanding of the Universe; they were interesting in preserving the unchallenged power the Church held over the people for centuries. If Galileo were not a man with great reputation he would most certainly have been killed for his beliefs. Instead, the Church chose to destroy Galileo’s evidence and secluded him in an attempt to prevent his ideas from spreading. Hmmm? That sounds familiar.
I am all for clean air and pure water but if we are chasing red herrings based on false science aren’t we diverting needed resources away from addressing real hazards? There is nothing in the Copenhagen proposals or in our own Climate Bill that does anything about the climate. It does take $145 Trillion dollars from western industrial nations and gives it to developing nations in what can only be called a “global welfare scheme”. No, this is not about pollution or global warming; this is just more socialist philanthropy. Capitalist philanthropy is the when the wealthy offer some of what they have earned as a gift to the society that allowed them to succeed. Socialist philanthropy, like the philanthropy of our own Democratic Party, is the perverse habit of governement leaders to hand out gifts of everyone else’s money. I suppose that’s a lot more palatable than using their own money but it just doesn’t seem as noble, now does it?
Paul
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
NASA has been stonewalling any effort to obtain their climate data for over two years blaming oil and coal companies for trying to discredit their reports. Jim Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not only refused to release his data to global warming naysayers but to other researchers as well; a curious strategy for someone that claims to have found the smoking gun linking global warming to the activities of man. One must remember that even though they wear the NASA logo, the GISS is located in the liberal bastion of Colombia University, one of Obama’s support centers for his socialist and globalist policies. Through Columbia’s collection of think tanks on public policy and political science, they have collectively endorsed nearly every ideological pursuit of this President and his radical inner circle of czars.
Hanson and NASA may have a good reason to try to shift public attention away from their “work” and onto the people that question the science behind the claims of global warming; after all….
1- NASA’s James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country's hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest despite authoritative climate data collected by other government agencies that refute those claims.
2- NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest; in fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.
3- Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
4- Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October's readings at all; figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Is Hansen, like his British counterpart Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks the Investor’s Business Daily? Hansen has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues, asks IBD?
Michael Mann was also implicated in the Climate-gate scandal, his name appearing in messages from Phil Jones, suggesting that damaging e-mails and data be deleted before any Freedom of Information Act requests could be processed. Fortunately for the western world, those scandalous e-mails were released by a yet, unknown, whistleblower. Mann’s e-mails contain his ideas to discredit skeptics of global warming by downgrading the status of scientific journals that publish dissenting views. The idea being that if those journals are no longer considered “peer reviews” then the dissenting views no longer possess scientific credibility.
Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. Much of Mann’s work including his famous “hockey stick graphs” appeared prominently in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Sources claim that Mann specifically selected tree rings that enhanced his theory of global warming and ignored those that didn’t fit his climate model. The “hockey stick” graph that showed a sharp rise in global temperatures beginning with the industrial revolution is apparently the result of the careful selection of data to reinforce a pre-determined model and is not a graph based on the actual compilation of data from a complete and unfiltered source.
While NOAA’s data disproves many of NASA’s climate reports, they are not completely innocent themselves. NOAA recently removed satellite data input into their model of ocean temperatures and boasted that the move showed an immediate jump of two tenths of a degree Celsius in ocean temperature readings. Somehow, NOAA does not see the exclusion of real data previously used to refine the accuracy of their computer model as manipulation. I find that troubling that since the importation of real data did not show the warming they predicted, they simply stopped using real data. In fact, some evidence has recently appeared that indicates that NOAA embarked on its own mission to silence climate critics using Mann’s idea of discrediting peer reviews that contain contradictory analysis.
So why would government agencies intentionally misrepresent scientific data? Well, the economy has certainly turned the heat up on law makers to trim the Federal budget. Now that climate alarmists like Al Gore, The IPCC and the UN have stated how sweeping climate initiatives are key to the survival of the planet; any government agency that performs climate research is guaranteed billions in funding at a time when they would ordinarily be struggling to validate their very existence. Funding, like drugs, can make the addict say or do anything to guarantee another dose and an agencies research that supports a President’s chosen agenda is likely to receive more funding that those results that do not.
Then there are the Phil Jones’s, the James Hanson’s and the Michael Mann’s of the world. Their religious devotion to the theory of global warming is obviously no longer a search for truth; it is however, the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Climate change skeptics, in their eyes, are heretics that must confess their sins or be destroyed. The Church imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life because his science disputed established doctrine. He looked through his newly created telescope and saw moons orbiting Saturn. Church teachings said that the Earth was the center of the Universe but Galileo speculated that this could not be true if moons were circling other planets. Much like the CRU or the IPCC, the Church was not interested in Galileo’s evidence or in a true understanding of the Universe; they were interesting in preserving the unchallenged power the Church held over the people for centuries. If Galileo were not a man with great reputation he would most certainly have been killed for his beliefs. Instead, the Church chose to destroy Galileo’s evidence and secluded him in an attempt to prevent his ideas from spreading. Hmmm? That sounds familiar.
I am all for clean air and pure water but if we are chasing red herrings based on false science aren’t we diverting needed resources away from addressing real hazards? There is nothing in the Copenhagen proposals or in our own Climate Bill that does anything about the climate. It does take $145 Trillion dollars from western industrial nations and gives it to developing nations in what can only be called a “global welfare scheme”. No, this is not about pollution or global warming; this is just more socialist philanthropy. Capitalist philanthropy is the when the wealthy offer some of what they have earned as a gift to the society that allowed them to succeed. Socialist philanthropy, like the philanthropy of our own Democratic Party, is the perverse habit of governement leaders to hand out gifts of everyone else’s money. I suppose that’s a lot more palatable than using their own money but it just doesn’t seem as noble, now does it?
Paul
Monday, October 19, 2009
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
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
Friday, October 16, 2009
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 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
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Reality Check
I will be honest with you; I am confused. I think I need a reality check because I must be missing something. President Obama laughs off criticisms that he is creating a “shadow” government through the appointments of radical and Marxist Czars to positions of power within his administration and then we find that Carol Browner, Mr. Obama’s Climate Czar, is at the center of a plan to implement the most onerous portions of the climate bill through the existing Clean Air Act of 1970 with or without Congressional approval. Ms. Browner is yet one more Obama appointee with Marxist tendencies as displayed by her previous involvement with Socialist International, a group that supports global governance.
The insanity Ms. Browner seeks to implement would add a massive amount of new regulations from an 18,000 page blueprint that can only be described as an eco-terrorist manifesto to destroy the economy of the United States. If implemented, it will move beyond automobiles to regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).
In an article featured in Politico, Josh Gerstein reports;
“Former Vice President Al Gore and current White House climate change czar Carol Browner are warning companies and lawmakers that the courts will step in to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress fails to act.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
He pointed approvingly to a decision issued Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowing public-nuisance lawsuits to proceed against companies that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (The three-judge panel initially included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but the two judges resolved the case after she was elevated to the Supreme Court.)
Gore said the trend in the courts was favoring greater regulation. "The Supreme Court ruled over a year ago that CO2 emissions are pollution as covered in the Clean Air Act," he said. "The U.S. EPA as a result of that court ruling has the [authority] to mandate reductions….Yes, there would be some efforts in the legislative branch to remove that authority but anything in the legislative branch of that sort would be vetoed by the president."
"Even in the absence of legislation, existing law will be requiring significant reduction of CO2. As a practical matter, that puts significant pressure on business lobbies resisting legislation to reassess their position," Gore said.
Browner called attention to the same appeals court ruling and also argued that the (electric) train was leaving the station, one way or another. "The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
While I know many of you already see the warning signs, there are some that still do not see the dangers. They ask “What would they possibly gain from disrupting industry and destroying the American economy?” I guess that depends on what their ultimate goals are. Carol Browner is an advocate of a single, global government. She is also an environmentalist. What a coincidence! So was Van Jones, the radical and vocal “Green Jobs Czar” that was recently forced to resign his position. The environmental movement has been infiltrated and taken over by radical socialists that look at America as the only thing that is preventing the spread of not only Marxism, but globalism in the Americas.
Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, who is another Obama appointee residing in a newly created position was heard praising the assent of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and spoke openly of how a free press nearly crushed his “amazing revolution.” He also has been quoted as saying that “Freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction….”
Then we have John Holdren, the Science Czar, that believes that people are the scourge and depopulation is the answer. Mr. Holdren co-authored a book that proposed mandatory sterilization and forced abortion to bring the human race down to acceptable levels. How did these people slip past both the press and the Congress and be ultimately escorted directly into the halls of government?
For the record, I don’t believe Al Gore is a globalist or a Marxist. He is heavily invested in a software company that will make him a billionaire if the Climate Bill passes so he is just a good old fashion thief and a hypocrite who is merely cashing in on global warming. We know he can’t possibly believe what he says because his lifestyle is so opulent and his energy consumption is ten time higher than the average American. Consuming that much energy is a feat all by itself and it simply doesn’t fit the lifestyle of a real honest-to-goodness environmentalist, now does it?
For those that believe that the only salvation of man is unification under a single world government, the environmental movement is the perfect vehicle since the planet is after all, global. All they would need is some all encompassing environmental crisis to achieve momentum. Well how about that…..global warming certainly fits that description. While America is dutifully engaged in hot debates over healthcare, the environmental socialists are maneuvering to implement plans that can have no other effect than to destroy the biggest roadblock to world governance…The United States of America.
Think about it. If global warming was the real crisis and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was the real objective, then why is this something the United States is doing virtually alone? China and India have already said “No thanks” and many other nations with CO2 emissions on a par with the U.S. would be exempt under the UN climate proposal. In fact, we will be cutting our emissions only to allow developing nations expand their manufacturing base and economy. Oh yes, and we will be throwing billions of dollars to assist them at that too.
If you ask me, this is the first assault in the war of globalism. If other nations are to take an equal place in this new global government then the United States would have to be cut down to size while her wealth and industrial might are portioned and sold off in one giant garage sale. Additionally, if our economy were disrupted beyond repair then we could no longer fund the fight for freedom. If we were impoverished, the American citizens would quickly lose this crazy idea that their wealth and freedoms give them immunity from the enlightened view of global social morality that is prevalent in liberal universities and geopolitical think tanks.
Author and journalist James Tucker has been following the globalist movement for thirty years. He wrote: “In 1990 the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
Unlike other crises that these groups could have latched on to, global warming has the urgency factor that they needed. It will compel people and nations to act before the full economic consequences of this so-called race to save the planet are fully realized or before the scientific data that supports it dwindles under increasing ridicule.
Slowly more and more people in the scientific communities are seeing data that does not make sense when discussing carbon dioxide induced global warming. The carbon dioxide found in ice core samples are not supporting the man-made crisis theory and the rise in global temperatures are not following the upward curve that would be expected if this were a continuing and unabated man made dilemma. The data actually suggests that natural cycles in solar output may have far more to do with recent warming trends than had previously been thought. These are not fringe scientists either; these are MIT study groups and others that actually have reputations to consider. Regardless of this change in philosophy by so many scientists, the Carol Browners and Al Gores of our nation are moving with alarming speed to force this nation into damaging legislation with dubious climatic benefits as a result of highly questionable science.
One thing is clear. There must be many more marches on Washington equal in size and passion to the one that occurred on September 12th. People must flood their legislator’s offices with letters and phone calls demanding that they put an end to this obvious conspiracy to coalesce powers in the White House that rightfully belong in the hands of Congress and more importantly, the States and people. There must be a unified demand for transparency in government and truth in the press. As long as they think they can dismiss us like ignorant peasants, we might as well dust off the pitchforks and torches and act like ignorant peasants. You know the old saying. “If you’re going to accuse me of stealing a hat, I might as well wear it.”
Paul
The insanity Ms. Browner seeks to implement would add a massive amount of new regulations from an 18,000 page blueprint that can only be described as an eco-terrorist manifesto to destroy the economy of the United States. If implemented, it will move beyond automobiles to regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).
In an article featured in Politico, Josh Gerstein reports;
“Former Vice President Al Gore and current White House climate change czar Carol Browner are warning companies and lawmakers that the courts will step in to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress fails to act.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
He pointed approvingly to a decision issued Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowing public-nuisance lawsuits to proceed against companies that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (The three-judge panel initially included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but the two judges resolved the case after she was elevated to the Supreme Court.)
Gore said the trend in the courts was favoring greater regulation. "The Supreme Court ruled over a year ago that CO2 emissions are pollution as covered in the Clean Air Act," he said. "The U.S. EPA as a result of that court ruling has the [authority] to mandate reductions….Yes, there would be some efforts in the legislative branch to remove that authority but anything in the legislative branch of that sort would be vetoed by the president."
"Even in the absence of legislation, existing law will be requiring significant reduction of CO2. As a practical matter, that puts significant pressure on business lobbies resisting legislation to reassess their position," Gore said.
Browner called attention to the same appeals court ruling and also argued that the (electric) train was leaving the station, one way or another. "The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
While I know many of you already see the warning signs, there are some that still do not see the dangers. They ask “What would they possibly gain from disrupting industry and destroying the American economy?” I guess that depends on what their ultimate goals are. Carol Browner is an advocate of a single, global government. She is also an environmentalist. What a coincidence! So was Van Jones, the radical and vocal “Green Jobs Czar” that was recently forced to resign his position. The environmental movement has been infiltrated and taken over by radical socialists that look at America as the only thing that is preventing the spread of not only Marxism, but globalism in the Americas.
Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, who is another Obama appointee residing in a newly created position was heard praising the assent of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and spoke openly of how a free press nearly crushed his “amazing revolution.” He also has been quoted as saying that “Freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction….”
Then we have John Holdren, the Science Czar, that believes that people are the scourge and depopulation is the answer. Mr. Holdren co-authored a book that proposed mandatory sterilization and forced abortion to bring the human race down to acceptable levels. How did these people slip past both the press and the Congress and be ultimately escorted directly into the halls of government?
For the record, I don’t believe Al Gore is a globalist or a Marxist. He is heavily invested in a software company that will make him a billionaire if the Climate Bill passes so he is just a good old fashion thief and a hypocrite who is merely cashing in on global warming. We know he can’t possibly believe what he says because his lifestyle is so opulent and his energy consumption is ten time higher than the average American. Consuming that much energy is a feat all by itself and it simply doesn’t fit the lifestyle of a real honest-to-goodness environmentalist, now does it?
For those that believe that the only salvation of man is unification under a single world government, the environmental movement is the perfect vehicle since the planet is after all, global. All they would need is some all encompassing environmental crisis to achieve momentum. Well how about that…..global warming certainly fits that description. While America is dutifully engaged in hot debates over healthcare, the environmental socialists are maneuvering to implement plans that can have no other effect than to destroy the biggest roadblock to world governance…The United States of America.
Think about it. If global warming was the real crisis and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was the real objective, then why is this something the United States is doing virtually alone? China and India have already said “No thanks” and many other nations with CO2 emissions on a par with the U.S. would be exempt under the UN climate proposal. In fact, we will be cutting our emissions only to allow developing nations expand their manufacturing base and economy. Oh yes, and we will be throwing billions of dollars to assist them at that too.
If you ask me, this is the first assault in the war of globalism. If other nations are to take an equal place in this new global government then the United States would have to be cut down to size while her wealth and industrial might are portioned and sold off in one giant garage sale. Additionally, if our economy were disrupted beyond repair then we could no longer fund the fight for freedom. If we were impoverished, the American citizens would quickly lose this crazy idea that their wealth and freedoms give them immunity from the enlightened view of global social morality that is prevalent in liberal universities and geopolitical think tanks.
Author and journalist James Tucker has been following the globalist movement for thirty years. He wrote: “In 1990 the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
Unlike other crises that these groups could have latched on to, global warming has the urgency factor that they needed. It will compel people and nations to act before the full economic consequences of this so-called race to save the planet are fully realized or before the scientific data that supports it dwindles under increasing ridicule.
Slowly more and more people in the scientific communities are seeing data that does not make sense when discussing carbon dioxide induced global warming. The carbon dioxide found in ice core samples are not supporting the man-made crisis theory and the rise in global temperatures are not following the upward curve that would be expected if this were a continuing and unabated man made dilemma. The data actually suggests that natural cycles in solar output may have far more to do with recent warming trends than had previously been thought. These are not fringe scientists either; these are MIT study groups and others that actually have reputations to consider. Regardless of this change in philosophy by so many scientists, the Carol Browners and Al Gores of our nation are moving with alarming speed to force this nation into damaging legislation with dubious climatic benefits as a result of highly questionable science.
One thing is clear. There must be many more marches on Washington equal in size and passion to the one that occurred on September 12th. People must flood their legislator’s offices with letters and phone calls demanding that they put an end to this obvious conspiracy to coalesce powers in the White House that rightfully belong in the hands of Congress and more importantly, the States and people. There must be a unified demand for transparency in government and truth in the press. As long as they think they can dismiss us like ignorant peasants, we might as well dust off the pitchforks and torches and act like ignorant peasants. You know the old saying. “If you’re going to accuse me of stealing a hat, I might as well wear it.”
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)