Archive for May, 2010
President Obama issued NSL’s to 14 Governors threatening legal action and possible arrest.
From BeforeItsNews.com :
A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United States President Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face “immediate” arrest for the crime of treason.
The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama’s “rubberstamp” Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rights groups who warned they mimic similar type “government security notices” enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes.
To the issue angering Obama against these State Governors, this report continues, is their attempt to reestablish what are called State Defense Forces which are described as follows:
“State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States.
State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities….
More on this from 50 Years of Freedom:
The above post includes interesting and chilling insight and backstory on this news.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
I received the following email today from Kurt Kallenback, the patriot who walked 800 miles to join other teapartiers at the capitol in DC for the 09/2009 rally. We now know the Coast Guard units seen traveling about the country in mass over the past few days are headed to the border. The Obama administration has ordered them there. Most, however, will be processing paperwork and stuck in desk jobs and NOT patrolling the border. Go figure. However, this is some scary stuff here. Read more about it, including alerts and communications from witnesses. This is legit. Apparently, there are many things going on simultaneously. This makes me wonder if those 1200 troops sent to the border for “desk work” are really there for that purpose. At least take a gander at this and remember this info down the line. http://www.patriotresistance.com/DEFCOM-STATUS-PAGE.html Hmmmm. I wonder why THEY need to be here?
Confirmed: Russian & Foreign Troops Ordered Into U.S.
Russian troops and equipment
Intel Hub – Once again, a story that we broke has been confirmed. The Intel Hub has broke some of the most valuable Intel out there to date. We broke this information almost a full week ago. It has now been confirmed through multiple sources. The Intel Hub does not post anything that isn’t well researched and these revelations have proved that once again. We have contacts embedded within many factions of the government and military. The Intel we have now suggests this situation will get far more sinister over the coming weeks. Please check out our shows and website at www.TheIntelHub.com. Please submit any tips to firstname.lastname@example.org
Recent numerous reports have been circulated in various web sites and blogs about two seemingly major unusual events taking place in the U.S.
The First event involved extremely large and unusual numbers of National Guard Units in various states being called up for drills or exercises potentially for upcoming deployments. Many have speculated that these are unusual call ups because of the sheer numbers being engaged and the so-called secrecy behind them.
Many people have commented that they are simply being activated in preparation for deployments to Iraq this summer, but one ‘CONFIRMED’ report involved the Minnesota 1st Brigade Combat Team and marks the largest deployment of Minnesota military forces since World War II. This alone is highly suspicious.
The More disturbing INTEL that has hit the wire in the past couple of days is the report of large numbers of foreign troops arriving at a large naval base in San Diego, California. This report came at dusk on Wednesday May 19, 2010.
U.S. Navy vessels were spotted unloading extremely large numbers of UN and Russian troops and Equipment. They disembarked the vessels as it was still light out in plain sight. Mostly Russian troops.
Up until recently this was not confirmed, but merely rumor of a report from an undisclosed military source. Kudos to the Intel Hub!
AS OF TONIGHT MAY 24, 2010……..We here at SENTINEL COMMAND have been able to actually CONFIRM this report to be true, by means of an On-The-Ground
This is extremely important INTEL because there have been reports that U.S. Secretary Napolitano had previously requested 3 to 4 brigades of troops from the Russian government to specifically assist in the quelling of domestic civil unrest by U.S. Citizens. This was done by the Obama Administration
The arrival of these troops obviously confirms this earlier rumor, otherwise they would not be here at this particular time. Although there doesn’t appear to be any ‘immediate’ threat …….this highly unusual event does cause extreme alarm and should have us all on our toes and looking for signs that something is going to happen and happen soon.
I need to urge each and everyone of you to stay alert and sharp and have your gear ready…..and above all, we need you to be our eyes and ears more than ever at this time. If any of you can obtain further INTEL on this report or any other activity occurring in your immediate vicinity, then PLEASE Report this back to me IMMEDIATELY. Please make sure the INTEL is Solid and Confirmed and not some rumors heard through unreliable third parties or websites.
A Link, as usual, has been set up for you to report any INTEL you can gather, at our DEFCOM page, as well as the news of this report and developments as they occur. READ
for eyewitness accounts and further and ongoing informationRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.
The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.
Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.
Labor doesn’t check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.
One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I’ve been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)
Here’s a note from a Census worker — this one from Manhattan:
“John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.
“I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.
“I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.
“A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.
“Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M.”
And here’s another:
“John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.
“I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.
“In short, we had a “checkers checking checkers” quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).
“I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.
“On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was ‘terminated.’ She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.
“I did get two days’ pay and I am sure the ‘late people’ got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.
“When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.
“I am not surprised that you can’t get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G.”
When I received my Census form in the mail, I filled it out. Nobody had to knock on my door.
I answered truthfully about the number of people living in my household. But I could have just as easily dou bled the number. Why not? Didn’t Census ad vertisements imply that my community would get more federal money if the popula tion were larger?
I’m glad people are finding work with the Census. For some it’s the only work they have had this year and the chump change they are making for a few hours’ work is a godsend.
But wasting taxpayers’ money on busywork isn’t going to do much for the economy.
While I am taking a temporary respite from my duties here, I would like to share with you some interesting links sent me by friends and fellow patriots.
I should be back with you in a week or two, thank you for your patience and continued loyalty.
http://ht.ly/1MIRl (via @JoAnneMoretti)
http://www.americanvoice.com/fullarticle.aspx?cat=Gun%20Control&id=212 (Obama finds way around second amendment) @via PL10)
http://www.iisd.ca/whats_new/whatsnew149.html (how to screw the American people) via @coyotered9
http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=751 (via @coyotered9)
http://www.latinotownhall.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=106 (via @resistance09) VERY ENLIGHTENING!!!
Many if not all of these links will shock you. Please share the ones that do with any naysayers in your circle of friends and family. Time is running out, my friends, for the America we all knew and love.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Q: The New World Order According To Maurice Strong and George Soros ?
Posted by MarineReconDad 1 year ago
Have you ever wondered how capitalism was pushed over the edge of the cliff just six weeks before the American presidential election?
“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”
These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.
It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order. Starring among all the glitterati at the Inauguration Ball, Barack and Michelle are like the stick figures from a kindergartener’s drawing, for this is an emperor who truly has no clothes.
Selected Strong Quotes
Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement
By Neil Hrab
While unknown to the general public, the name “Maurice Strong” elicits strong emotions from people who understand the politics of the environmental movement.
To his fellow environmentalists, the septuagenarian Strong is a noble, unceasing activist for the “green” cause. Strong played a major role in organizing the path-breaking United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972. Two decades later he was center-stage at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where he helped lay the groundwork for the Kyoto global warming treaty that mandates reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to combat an unproven global warming threat. This year the Bush Administration rejected the treaty citing its drastic impact on Western industrial economies and the unsettled science on global warming.
Strong continues to aggressively advocate the treaty’s ratification. As a leader of government and non-governmental organizations, he has rallied elite and popular opinion to support international environmental regulation. For a time, Strong led Ted Turner’s Better World Society, a foundation promoting the United Nations, and he has served as chair or director in a variety of pro-environmentalist organizations, including the United Nations Foundation, the Commission on Global Governance and the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Strong has also had a major influence in helping set philanthropic giving priorities for environmental causes. Most notably, Turner named Strong a director on the board of the United Nations Foundation
that the media mogul established in 1998. The Foundation has assets of $125.4 million and has made a total of $227.7 million in grants. In this and other positions, Strong has encouraged international agencies to steer funding support to non-governmental environmental organizations.
A sympathetic biographer has observed:
Strong has not been a typical environmentalist. He hasn’t made scientific discoveries like those made by Jane Goodall while observing the chimps in Africa. He hasn’t started any organizations like Friends of the Earth. The idea of sustainable development isn’t even his.
But his role has been no less important. Before ideas like sustainable development can change the world, they must first be brought to its attention. And that is what Maurice Strong has done…He has been a tireless worker for planet Earth.
This April, Strong published Where on Earth Are We Going? With a foreword by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and dust-jacket blurbs from World Bank president James Wolfensohn and former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, now president of Turner’s United Nations Foundation, the book parades the company Strong keeps. The memoir recounts years of personal environmental activism. But, more importantly, it describes the political strategies of the international environmental movement and is a scorecard on their achievements.
Publicist for International Environmentalism
How has Strong promoted concepts like sustainable development to consume the world’s attention? Mainly by using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection. He can bring presidents, prime ministers and potentates from the world’s four corners to big environmental conferences such as the 1992 Rio Summit, an environmental spectacle organized by Strong and attended by more than 100 heads of state.
But the talent for networking that endears Strong to his green allies also attracts scorn. To many American conservatives, Strong is almost a sinister figure – a shadowy individual flitting endlessly from one gathering of world leaders to another, all the time promoting ominous concepts U.N. “global governance.” An 1997 piece on Strong in National Review expresses this suspicion well:
“[Maurice Strong is] dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.”
“[Strong] is kind of the global Ira Magaziner,” says Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute, comparing Strong to President Clinton’s chief advisor for his failed socialized medicine proposal. “If he is whispering in Kofi Annan’s ear this is no good at all.”
In Where in the World Are We Going?, Strong scoffs at “the right-wing media in the United States” for claiming that he is “a dangerous leader of a conspiracy to establish a world government that would subvert the sovereignty of the United States.”
Strong may be right to complain about mere suspicions. What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda. That the Bush Administration has been forced into a feud with our European allies over the Kyoto treaty is only the most recent example of Strong’s amazing influence.
An Amazing Life
Maurice Strong was born on April 29, 1929 in Oak Lake, Manitoba, Canada. His family was hardly wealthy. “We were the poorest of the poor,” Strong once recalled during an interview. “When we went for groceries, the storekeeper would say, ‘Is this going on your bill again?'” Despite a difficult early life, Strong showed great promise—he claims to have skipped four grades during his schooling and qualified for university entrance at age 14. But education bored the precocious Strong, and so in 1943 he left home and worked at odd jobs, including as a fur trader in the Canadian far north, before joining a stock brokerage firm in Winnipeg.
Some believe Strong’s early experiences – especially memories of growing up during the Great Depression – help explain his Leftist politics. As Peter Foster of Canada’s Financial Post has written:
“[From a young age Strong] was haunted by the spectre of an economic “system” that — as conventional leftist wisdom would have it — had “broken down.” For many leftists, the Depression has always been one of the treasured rationales for government intervention (although it was in fact created by government policies), but Mr. Strong perhaps cleaves to this rationale more than most because he lived it. As a boy, he ate dandelion and pigweed. He saw his father wrap his feet in rags before going out to the bush to cut wood. He saw his educated mother lose her mind [to severe depression]. It would be impossible not to be moved by such a tale.”
Ironically, a fair chunk of Strong’s early resume has him working for the oil industry. In the 1950s, he worked for Dome Petroleum, traveling throughout Africa to set up a network of service stations and recruit locals to run them. In the 1960s, he re-built an ailing oil firm called Ajax Petroleum into a powerhouse renamed Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Co. Strong’s expertise in the energy field was highly respected. When Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau set up a state-owned gas company called Petro-Canada in 1975, he made Strong its president.
Subsequently, Strong combined his private sector experience with tours of duty in government and international agencies. In 1966, thanks in part to his ties to Canada’s then-ruling Liberal Party, Strong became chief of the Canadian International Development Agency. He held that post for four years before leaving to immerse himself in United Nations activities. Strong was secretary-general of the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment and later served as executive director of the UN Environment Program. During the African famine of the mid-1980s, he was Executive Coordinator of the UN Office for Emergency Operations.
During these years Strong developed his passion for environmental policy. In Where on Earth Are We Going?, he writes: “I knew there was a role for me to play here [in the environmental movement]…I also began to sense one of the great underlying truths of environmental politics. The environment is supranational. It transcends the nation state. At the very least it has to be dealt with multilaterally.”
A Major Force in Environmental Philanthropy
Strong has had great success in using his industry and government contacts to generate funding for the environmental movement. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his association with Ted Turner.
In 1985, Turner established the Better World Society to promote two of his pet issues: environmentalism and the UN. In Where on Earth Are We Going?, Strong describes how in 1991 Turner persuaded him to lead the organization: “Midway through lunch, [Turner] abruptly put down his knife and fork and got down on his knees… ‘Maurice,’ he said, ‘I’m down on my knees because I want you to become president of the Better World Society, and I beg you not to say no.'” Strong didn’t.
The Better World Society was only the beginning. In January 1998, Turner donated $1 billion to the new United Nations Foundation. Its goal is to distribute $100 million a year for the next ten years to U.N. programs dealing with poverty, malnutrition, peacekeeping and the environment. Turner named Strong to the founding board of directors.
UN Foundation environmental grants since 1999 have included a $900,000 grant for a joint one-year project of the UN Development Program and World Resources Institute to help China develop policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, alleged to be responsible for dangerous global warming. The Foundation also has contributed $520,000 to teach young people about the environment and it made a similar-sized grant so that a U.N. task force could study the environment in relation to human settlements.
Turner and Strong have a mutual admiration society; they effusively praise one another for all they do on the world’s behalf. Turner’s penchant for insult and bombast seems not to bother Strong. In August 2000, Turner spoke to the U.N. “World Peace Summit” and denounced Christianity as “intolerant because it taught we were the only ones going to heaven. That confused the devil out of me since that would have left heaven a very empty place.” Turner went on to praise “indigenous” religious faiths and all the things humans have in common, including “love of birds, butterflies, wives and flowers.” Strong had enthusiastically introduced Turner, saying he had done more for peace and understanding, the environment, and the U.N. than any other person.
Strong has raised money for environmental organizations in other ways. In his book Global Greens (Capital Research Center, 1998), James Sheehan describes how Strong used his personal connections to transform the World Bank from an enemy to an ally of environmental groups – and a donor to them. Until the mid-1990s, environmentalists charged the World Bank with financing the destruction of Brazilian rainforests, and they accused it of making loans to Third World governments that forced the poor from their homes. Environmentalists were so irate with the World Bank that they called for its elimination.
Then in 1995, a new president, James Wolfensohn, took charge of the agency. A Wall Street investment banker, Wolfensohn was critical of Bank projects he considered environmentally harmful. He was also a Strong protégé. Strong watched approvingly as Wolfensohn instituted environmentalist-friendly policies, including the appointment of environmental NGOs to World Bank advisory committees. Many of these organizations received World Bank grants to implement biodiversity and global warming projects in developing nations. Says Sheehan, “The World Bank has done an excellent job of co-opting the environmental movement by re-packaging itself as a ‘sustainable development’ agency.” Strong was pivotal in this dramatic transformation of the Bank from foe to friend.
Strong’s Environmental Philosophy
Strong’s environmental views are distilled in a speech he gave as head of the United Nations Environment Programme more than 25 years ago. The Feb. 13, 1974 address at Iona College in Windsor, Canada contains what is still the core of his thinking.
At the outset Strong noted: “I speak to you as a layman – one who has had the great privilege of receiving the help and advice in my work [at the UN] of a significant cross section of the world’s scientists and environmentalists. I would not pretend that I have been able to assimilate all of it or to draw the soundest conclusions from it [italics added].”
The problem as Strong saw it was not the threat of environmental cataclysm, but the danger of “a series of more limited catastrophes affecting large segments of the world’s population and posing an acute moral, economic and political dilemma to the whole global community.”
Their source was Western Man and his abiding “preoccupation with the physical, the material, the quantitative aspects of our lives – an obsession with the notion that more is better in all things…The relentless application of purely economic criteria to decision-making has grossly distorted allocation of resources in favour of the areas of highest economic return rather than of social priority.”
Strong reviewed the assorted environmental dangers: “Scientists advise me that there is a possibility that we may already be in the beginning stages of a major shift in the dynamics of the earth’s climate system.” Next he worried about “forcing the oceans to bear an impossible burden as final global reservoirs of waste” and then shifted to population – “…the headlong pace of mass migration from rural areas to the cities, the rapid growth in unemployment, and escalating pressure on already overstrained resources and services, particularly in the developing world, will almost surely get worse before they can get better.”
Strong said the right policies could prevent ecological disaster. “We urgently need an anti-disaster strategy. We need to find and repair to a safer course.”
· Population growth had to be curbed “by improving the incentives to reduce family size by spreading the benefits of [economic] development more widely and by developing improved techniques of family planning for those with the incentive to use them.”
· “The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation.”
· Incentives should be created to move industry from the developed to the developing world—a giant job redistribution. The imperative here is “the need to avoid overburdening the environment in any particular area [of the world]…” The developed world must tighten its belt in other ways – people dwelling there must embrace “alternative life styles and patterns of consumption, oriented more to quality and non-material satisfactions and less to quantity.”
What Strong’s sweeping call for “non-material satisfactions” meant for American consumers is now discernable in many environmentalist policy proposals. Environmental organizations, echoing Strong’s criticisms, frequently condemn the American lifestyle as wasteful and ecologically unsustainable. To “reform” public behavior, they argue for coercive laws and regulations to force people out of their cars and into mass transportation, out of single-family homes in spacious suburbs and into smaller apartments in congested cities, and out of jobs in industries like fossil fuels that they consider threats to the environment.
But restrictions on domestic living standards are only the beginning. Strong’s speech asked the U.S. and First World nations to commit to an additional sacrifice – they should dedicate themselves to “a much larger flow of resources between rich and poor countries with heavy emphasis on the provision of basic social services to the poorest sectors.” In other words, Strong would have the U.S. spend billions on international aid programs.
Key Environmental Strategy: Strengthen the U.N.
Twenty-five years ago Strong sketched out a global political framework that would curtail the sovereignty of nations and expand the power of the U.N. and other international organizations. Strong’s downpayment on this vision have been the policies he subsequently has helped advance at a series of U.N.-sponsored conferences from Stockholm and Rio to Kyoto and, next year, Johannesburg.
Strong appears to rule out a formal world government when he suggests that “the technological society [his shorthand expression for life in a globalized world] cannot be managed by traditional systems of hierarchical control.” Instead, “it requires a network of institutions, governmental and non-governmental, local, regional, national and international, to perform the wide variety tasks and functions necessary to the operation of that society.”
This new network does not exactly end nation-state sovereignty. Instead, it should lead to the creation of a formalized “system of international organizations” whose purpose will be to “provide the instrumentalities for carrying out those common tasks which it is either not feasible or advantageous for [individual nation-states] to carry out themselves.”
There’s no need to describe the peril of handing over U.S. sovereignty – a sovereignty that guarantees the freedoms of U.S. citizens – to a centralized and often corrupt foreign bureaucracy whose agenda is frequently at odds with U.S. policies and values. Strong’s enthusiasm for the U.N. completely ignores its history of failure in numerous policy areas. In the years since Strong’s 1974 speech the U.N. has failed to alleviate poverty – and ecological devastation – in Africa and other developing nations. And its peacekeeping efforts in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia failed to deter aggression in the 1990s.
Global Warming Alarmism
Critics say Strong and other environmentalists are transfixed by disaster scenarios built on junk science. Nowhere is this more apparent than Strong’s attitude toward global warming.
Global warming is the theory that rising man-made carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, autos and other industrial activities will cause a dangerous increase in temperatures that will wreak havoc on the planet’s climate in myriad ways, from melting the polar ice caps to causing powerful storms and severe droughts.
In Where on Earth Are We Going? Strong presents a fictional “Report to the Shareholders, Earth Inc.” bearing the date January 1, 2031 and built around the imagined impact of global warming. In Strong’s telling North America will be a hell on earth. The Midwest will be struggling through a tenth straight year of drought, and New Orleans will be ravaged by tropical diseases to such an extent that it becomes little more than a “shrinking fortress held only with poisonous amounts of lethal pesticides.” In Los Angeles, “water vendors with armed guards roam the streets…” Both cities are better off than the state of Florida, which will have fallen under the sea.
Strong advocates ratification of the Kyoto treaty to stop the impending crisis. Negotiated by the Clinton Administration in December 1997, the treaty requires the U.S. to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 to 40 per cent by 2010. But according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, that could cost the economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility rates by 86 per cent, hike the cost of heating oil by 76 per cent, and impose a permanent “Kyoto gasoline tax” of 66 cents per gallon. In total, each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy. WEFA, an economic information and consulting firm, reports that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and manufacturing wages cut by 2.1 per cent.
This gives Strong no pause. Indeed, he seems to want to inflict economic damage on Western industrial democracies. When it comes to environmental policy, Strong says, “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease.”
Strong supports Kyoto despite the scientific evidence. The U.N. has repeatedly scaled down its prediction of rapid temperature increases in coming decades. In 1990, for instance, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that global temperatures would rise six degrees farenheit by 2100. Just three years later, the IPCC adjusted its projection downward to a rise of less than two degrees farenheit. NASA satellites, the most accurate measure of global temperature, show that the Earth has slightly cooled since 1979, contradicting doomsayers who predicted global warming should have caused the temperature to increase six-tenths of a degree by now.
Scientists who once strongly believed in the theory are now more skeptical. Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who inaugurated the global warming debate in 1988, said then that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the temperature to increase and lead to increased drought by the end of the 20th century. In 1998, Hansen candidly admitted his predictions had not come true because he didn’t know enough about the climate system. In 2000, Hansen went further and said carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming. Hansen still subscribes to the global warming theory but he believes the treaty should be abandoned because it targets the wrong greenhouse gas and harms international relations by turning developing and developed nations into “adversaries.”
Environmental politicians like Maurice Strong don’t follow the science. They push for power. Strong has devoted his life to establishing international legal procedures to enforce his vision. And his imagination is haunted by a parade of environmental horribles. Scientists doubt they may ever come to pass, but Strong, like many contemporary environmentalists, is motivated more by fervent conviction than scientific evidence. Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” never exploded, and the Club of Rome’s reports on the limits to growth are famously wrong. Not one catastrophe hypothesized by Strong and other environmentalists has occurred. But that hasn’t stopped them from building the environmental movement.
Neil Hrab is a graduate of the University of Toronto and served as a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow at Capital Research Center.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
Here is that article:
Global snake oil salesman
By Alan Caruba
Okay, so this guy comes up to you and swears he’s got the inside scoop on what’s going to happen over the next thirty years. You figure you can cash in big-time because this guy is a multimillionaire, has rubbed shoulders with presidents, prime ministers, movie stars, the whole power structure thing. With the inside information he’s about to give you, you’re going to be on easy street.
He pulls out his crystal ball, gazes into it and here’s just a little of what he tells you will occur: It is January 1, 2031 and central authority has broken down in thirty-two more nations. India has long since disintegrated. The European Union has collapsed. Again. What had been called Russia is just a bunch of city-states and regions run mostly by warlords. Oh, by the way, there have been massive forest fires in Siberia that have destroyed towns, cities, and industries there. Nine more countries in Latin America have reverted to military dictatorships.
In the US, a President has been assassinated and the new one is even more “politically impotent with effective power increasingly concentrated among the extremists who now control Congress in concert with the military and the FBI.”
Are you with me so far? I mean, this is one heck of a crystal ball and so filled with interesting news about the future. I know you are just dying to hear all about the environment and, let me tell, you, it’s the pits!
There have been “unprecedented extremes of weather.” Florida is-I kid you not-under water and the lowlands of the Carolinas are lagoons. Most of California is totally devastated, particularly since the “Great Earthquake of 2026.”
Did I mention there’s been a drought in the US Great Plains area and Canada too? It’s been going on for seven years. The Colorado River “long since stolen from the Mexicans by California” is now only a trickle.
The summer’s heat wave in 2030 was so bad it closed down Washington, DC. In fact, “deaths from heat-related causes exceeded a hundred thousand” but like bad weather makes for bad news. Take, for example, the way “refugees are even entering North America from the north, stumbling over the polar icecaps, perishing in their hundreds.” (The good news is that the polar bear population has topped one million. Just kidding!)
Things are no better in Bangladesh and the Netherlands. Water as far as the eye can see, millions dead. Whole South Pacific Islands have disappeared. Come to think of it, at least 100 million have died in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and other Asian nation. Yup, things have really gone down hill since 2001. And in only thirty years!
Ironically, drinking water is worth more than oil in 2031, but, then again, a barrel of oil costs $50. And guess what? The one country that is doing well is Germany. Yes, it turns out that the Germans have elected someone who, like Hitler, granted himself emergency powers, “giving him total authority.” Now, all the good Germans are working together “for the common good and share equitably in both the sacrifices and the benefits achieved through a total mobilization of citizens to deal with their problems.” Why, old Adolf himself couldn’t have said it better.
Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. This multimillionaire soothsayer puts his crystal ball away and leans forward. In a tone of the most sincerity, he asks you, if everything he’s told you is “just a sour fantasy, the dismal fiction of a doomsayer?”
What’s your answer? Do you think this scenario is accurate? Everything above came from a new book, “Where on Earth are We Going?”, by Maurice Strong, the organizer of the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit and a senior advisor to the United Nations and World Bank.
What’s useful about his memoir by one of the most influential figures in the global environmental movement is his belief, shared by the movement’s true believers, that the earth is on the brink of chaos. Global warming, right around the corner, will drown whole nations, devastate the coasts of all nations, bring about plagues, and rival the Bible itself for the horrors that will occur if…if we don’t do just exactly what Maurice wants us to do.
You see, the problem is our “industrial civilization.” It’s going to require “some very fundamental changes…” What are they? You can read about them in Agenda 21 and all the other lunatic reports and books about the earth that have been produced by the United Nations and people like Maurice Strong. Essentially, if you thought the Dark Ages were fun, you will love the “fundamental changes” the Greens have in mind.
In 1990, I created The National Anxiety Center as a clearinghouse for information about scare campaigns. They were and are the proliferating efforts to frighten people, not just in America, but worldwide, into accepting the idea that the earth is facing an environmental Armageddon for which the only answer is a global government. It’s being put together right now by an army of faceless, unelected bureaucrats in the United Nations and their fellow travelers, the “non-governmental organizations” who would also share power.
No more United States of America. No more Great Britain. No more Sweden, Brazil, China, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia or Russia. No more France, Kenya, Nepal, Bermuda or Tunisia, Just one big family, all being run out of the United Nations by people who don’t have to worry about being elected by anyone. One huge redistribution of wealth from the industrialized Western nations to the under-developed nations of the world in order to end their poverty. And then everyone will be happy, right?
This is the classic Communist scenario. When Communism failed in Russia, as it will in China, and everywhere else it is imposed by force, people discover that only free markets, competition, and a lot of really hard work, coupled with a legal system that protects private property, generates wealth and the higher living standards that come with it.
You just don’t get much distribution of wealth if some despot is running your country with the help of his family and close friends. You get, oh, say, Indonesia under Suharto. Cuba under Castro. Iraq under Hussein. Or just about any nation on the continent of Africa. It’s a long list.
Let’s thank Maurice Strong for publishing his memoir, for giving us a tiny look at what a very wealthy, very well-connected, very dedicated crackpot can do once he is totally convinced the world is coming to an end.
“Ecological destruction is a sign of the imbalance in the way our industrial civilization sets its priorities and governs itself.” Those of us who see him for the lunatic he is are, in his view, members of “the paranoid right.” Indeed, everything others and I have written over the past years about the Greens and the United Nations are just “the deluded and paranoid ravings of the Western far right.” Strong’s predictions of what life will be in 2031 are, of course, not paranoid ravings.
Alan Caruba is a frequent contributor. His weekly column, “Warning Signs” is posted every Friday on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. © Alan Caruba, 2001.
The legacy of Maurice Strong
Posted: August 24, 2002
By Joan Veon
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – Ten years ago, as I was reading a very small article in the Washington Post on the Rio Earth Summit, I laughed and told my husband, “Those crazy environmentalists who don’t know their right foot from their left foot are having this huge meeting in Rio and it won’t go anywhere.”
On their own, their movement would never amount to a hill of beans. However, given the environmental mandate of “The Report from Iron Mountain,” a secret report commissioned by the Kennedy administration in 1961 to find political and economic alternatives for a time in which the world would have no more wars, I was very naive and wrong.
Maurice Strong who was the secretary-general of the 1972 and 1992 environmental conferences made the following comments 10 years ago at the closing meeting:
Using what has been put in place in the last 10 years and the current program of action let me update you with his legacy.
The earth is not the same. We have been turned upside down and inside out. The reordering of God’s balance for earth and the demotion of man to being equal to a plant or animal is the first understanding. You and I are no longer valued the same as we were when God’s rules reigned in the hearts of government. We are now a species, or a class, instead of a human as in being, soul, individual, person or creature. We are more expendable now and, as you will see, can be herded like cows.
With regard to climate change – which basically says cows, human and plants give off too much carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases – it maintains that pollution and the burning of forests and coal must be reduced. Because we all share the atmosphere, climate warming became the “first global problem” that individual firms and countries could not solve on their own. The major transnational corporations have been working on a scheme of trading carbon permits as a way for us to transfer part of our carbon to lesser-developed countries that have less pollution.
At a World Bank Conference on sustainable development several years ago, when economist Joseph Stiglitz presented this concept, I asked him if he was basically “bringing a new company public or a stock to market” in creating this permit-trading system. He answered, “Yes,” and with a very large grin said, “And we will do very well!” Within the last year, a carbon-trading market was established in Chicago.
Interestingly enough, Maurice Strong is one of its directors. Furthermore, it has been suggested that if the price of energy went up, it would encourage people to change to more efficient technologies, thus reducing carbon in the air. Can you imagine the profit insiders and interested parties would make on another oil embargo, let alone the money they will make bartering the carbon trading permits?
“Agenda 21” is now the earth’s new gospel. I believe that in the future it just may replace “The Communist Manifesto.” Ever read it? Your children are being taught it in their elementary schools through college. Furthermore there are high school environmental clubs that are being taught how to protest.
The follow-up to “Agenda 21” is being put forth at this summit. It calls for a number of actions – specifically in the areas of biodiversity, health, energy, water and agriculture. The more than 150 action items create a web of control, management and expense that will bring unbelievable hardship for each of us. Furthermore, “Agenda 21” is changing and evolving. These geniuses are learning by trial and error. You and I and all of God’s Creation have become a global laboratory.
Because the kings, princes, presidents and prime ministers agreed to “Agenda 21,” they need money to implement it. And with this summit, they even need more money. There are numerous proposals on the table which include establishing a world solidarity fund to eradicate poverty, “[significant] increases in the flow of foreign direct investment to developing countries,” and “develop ways of generating new public and private innovative sources of finance through the use of special drawing rights for development purposes through the IMF.”
Those agreed to include: “adopt and implement polices and measures aimed at promoting sustainable patterns of production and consumption applying the polluter-pays principle and internationally agreed development goals will require significant increases in the flow of financial resources [including through new and additional financial resources] in particular to developing countries.”
Currently the countries of the world give about 0.3 percent of GNP to developing countries. At the March Financing for Development Conference, a number of countries committed more money toward the ideal goal of 0.7 percent of GNP goal for Overseas Development Assistance. This is not enough. Now the World Bank estimates that they will need double the amount annually to meet the Millennium Summit Development Goals incorporated into the program of action.
Here in Johannesburg, the masters of the universe have upped the ante. They have proposed “0.15 to 0.20 percent of GNP of developed countries to least developed countries” in addition to the current goal of 0.7 percent of GNP for developing countries! When is enough enough?
The world is not the same. We have been hijacked by a group of rogue kings, princes, presidents and prime ministers – not to mention corporate CEOs, insiders and international bankers. “Agenda 21” basically pits the proletariat against the serfs. The more I hear, the more I read, I believe that making the 21st century sustainable is nothing more than a time of 21st-century “feudalism.” This is Maurice Strong’s legacy to us.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
WHO IS MAURICE STRONG?
The adventures of Maurice Strong & Co. illustrate the fact that nowadays you don’t have to be a household name to wield
By Ronald Bailey Published in The National Review September 1, 1997
Mr. Bailey is a freelance journalist and television producer in Washington, D.C. He is author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martin’s) and The True State of the Planet (Free Press).
“The survival of civilization in something like its present form might depend significantly on the efforts of a single man,” declared The New Yorker. The New York Times hailed that man as the “Custodian of the Planet.” He is perpetually on the short list of candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations.
This lofty eminence? Maurice Strong, of course. Never heard of him? Well, you should have. Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of “global governance” that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans’ lives. Maurice
Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the “indispensable man” at the center of this creeping UN power grab.
Not that Mr. Strong looks particularly indispensable. Indeed, he exudes a kind of negative charisma. He is a grey, short, soft-voiced man with a salt-and-pepper toothbrush mustache who wouldn’t rate a second glance if you passed him on the street. Yet his remarkable career has led him from boyhood poverty in Manitoba to the highest councils of international government.
Among the hats he currently wears are: Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota’s International Advisory Board. As advisor to Kofi Annan, he is overseeing the new UN reforms.
Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development — the so-called Earth Summit — held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.
“He’s dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.”
“This guy is kind of the global Ira Magaziner,” says Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute. “If he is whispering in Kofi Annan’s ear this is no good at all.”
Strong attracts such mystified suspicion because he is difficult to pin down. He told Maclean’s in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” And his career combines oil deals with the likes of Adnan Khashoggi with links to the environmentalist Left. He is in fact one of a new political breed: the bi-sectoral entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.
Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s. He took over and turned around some small ailing energy companies in the 1960s, and he was president of a major holding company — the Power Corporation of Canada — by the age of 35. This was success by any standard. Yet on more than one occasion (including once in Who’s Who), Strong has been caught exaggerating. He claimed, for instance, to have forfeited a $200,000 salary when he left Power. The real figure, said a company officer, was $35,000. Why this myth-making? Well, a CEO is just a CEO — but a whiz-kid is a potential cabinet officer.
And it is in politics that Strong’s talents really shine. He is the Michelangelo of networking. He early made friends in high places in Canada’s Liberal Party — including Paul Martin Sr., Canada’s external-affairs minister in the Sixties — and kept them as business partners in oil and real-estate ventures. He cultivated bright well-connected young people — like Paul Martin Jr., Canada’s present finance minister and the smart money’s bet to succeed Jean Chretien as prime minister — and salted them throughout his various political and business networks to form a virtual private intelligence service. And he always seemed to know what the next political trend would be — foreign aid, Canadian economic nationalism, environmentalism.
In 1966, by now a Liberal favorite, Strong became head of the Canadian International Development Agency and thus was launched internationally. Impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked him to organize what became the first Earth Summit — the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The next year, Strong became first director of the new UN Environment Program, created as a result of Stockholm. And in 1975, he was invited back to Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada, created by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the wake of OPEC’s oil shocks.
Petro-Canada was a sop to Canada’s anti-American Left, then denouncing American ownership of the country’s oil companies. Strong talked a good economic-nationalist game — but he himself was a major reason why Canada’s oil companies were U.S.-owned. Ten years before, while at Power Corporation, he had enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company by throwing a controlling block of shares in its direction. As Maclean’s wrote, he now returned “amid fanfares” to rectify this.
After a couple of years, Strong left Petro-Canada for various business deals, including one with Adnan Khashoggi through which he ended up owning the 200,000-acre Baca ranch in Colorado, now a “New Age” center run by his wife, Hanne. (Among the seekers at Baca are Zen and Tibetan Buddhist monks, a breakaway order of Carmelite nuns, and followers of a Hindu guru called Babaji.) Not for long the joys of contemplation, however. In 1985, he was back as executive coordinator of the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, in charge of running the $3.5-billion famine-relief effort in Somalia and Ethiopia. And in 1989, he was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit — shortly thereafter flying down to Rio.
Strong’s flexibility, however, must not be mistaken for open-mindedness. His friends, his allies among Canadian Liberals, his networks in the UN and the Third World, even his long-term business partners (like the late Paul Nathanson, wartime treasurer of the Canadian-Soviet Friendship Committee) all lean Left. He has said the Depression left him “frankly very radical.” And given his ability to get things done, the consistency of his support for a world managed by bureaucrats is alarming. As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned
urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe. IN the meantime, Strong continued the international networking on which his influence rests. He became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). He found time to serve as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance — which, as we shall see, plays a crucial part in the international power grab. Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Strong’s network of contacts must rival the Internet. To list a few:
— Vice President Al Gore. (Of course.)
— World Bank President James Wolfensohn, formerly on the Rockefeller Foundation Board and currently on the Population Council Board; he was Al Gore’s favored candidate for the World Bank position.
— James Gustave Speth, head of the Carter Administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, crafter of the doomladen Global 2000 report, member of the Clinton – Gore transition team; he now heads the UN Development Program.
— Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth, now Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.
— Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute — which works closely with the World Bank, the UN Environment Program, and the UN Development Program — and Co-Chairman of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.
— Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister and Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.
But Strong is no snob; he even counts Republican Presidents among his friends. Elaine Dewar again:
Strong blurted out that he’d almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he’d donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn’t confirm.)
I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?
Well, he’d had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.
But why? I’d asked.
“Because I wanted influence in the United States.”
So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale — if it is not part of Strong’s mythmaking. Most of Strong’s friends are more obviously compatible, which may explain why they tend to overlap in their institutional commitments. For example, James Wolfensohn (whom Strong had hired out of Harvard in the early Sixties to run an Australian subsidiary of one of his companies) appointed him as his senior advisor almost immediately upon being named chairman of the World Bank.
“I’d been involved in . . . Stockholm, which Maurice Strong arranged,” says Wolfensohn, who, more recently, has been credited with co-drafting (with Mikhail Gorbachev) the Earth Charter presented for consideration at the Rio + 5 meeting in Brazil earlier this year. As head of the Earth Council, Maurice Strong chaired that meeting.
It’s not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces — namely, market forces. And though the crises change — World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the “energy crisis” in the Seventies — the Left’s remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: “If we don’t change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Apocalypse soon — unless international bodies save us from ourselves.
LAST week, Secretary General Annan unveiled Maurice Strong’s plan for reorganizing the UN. To be sure, the notoriously corrupt and inefficient UN bureaucracy could do with some shaking up. Strong’s plan, however, mostly points in a different direction — one drawn from a document, Our Global Neighborhood, devised by the interestingly named Commission on Global Governance.
The CGG was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. Then Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed it. The CGG naturally denies advocating the sort of thing that fuels militia nightmares. “We are not proposing movement toward a world government,” reassuringly write Co-Chairmen Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, “. . . [but] this is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules.” Quite so. As Hofstra University law professor Peter Spiro describes it: “The aim is not a superstate but rather the establishment of norm-creating multilateral regimes . . . This construct already constrains state action in the context of human rights and environmental protection and is on a springboard in other areas.”
The concept of global governance has been fermenting for some time. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems “are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems.” Also in 1991 Strong claimed that the Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General, would play an important role in “reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the CGG agreed: “It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”
Americans should be worried by the Commission’s recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually — nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget. It also recommended that “user fees” might be imposed on companies operating in the “global commons.” Such fees might be collected on international airline tickets, ocean shipping, deep-sea fishing, activities in Antarctica, geostationary satellite orbits, and electromagnetic spectrum. But the big enchilada is carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas.
“A carbon tax,” the report deadpans, “. . . would yield very large revenues indeed.” Given the UN’s record of empire-building and corruption, Cato’s Ted Carpenter warns: “One can only imagine the degree of mischief it could get into if it had independent sources of revenue.”
Especially significant for the U.S. was the CGG’s proposal for eventual elimination of the veto held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Commission knew that the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S., would not easily surrender their vetoes, and so it recommended a two-stage process.
In the first stage, five new permanent members (without a veto) would be added to the Security Council — probably Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, and Nigeria — along with three new slots for non-permanent members. But the real threat to U.S. interests is the second stage: “a full review of the membership of the Council . . . around 2005, when the veto can be phased out.” These plans are advancing. In March, the president of the UN General Assembly, Razali Ismail of Malayasia, unveiled his own formula for reforming the Security Council. It closely tracks the CGG’s proposals. In particular, Razali proposed “urg[ing] the original permanent members to limit use of the veto . . . and not toextend [it] to new permanent members.” He wanted to make the veto “progressively and politically untenable” and recommended that these arrangements be reviewed in ten years.
In July the State Department compromised — accepting five new Security Council members but remaining silent on the veto. It plainly hopes that the veto issue will go away if the U.S. concedes on enlarging the Council. Yet the CGG’s report makes clear that we are facing a rolling agenda to expand the power of UN bureaucrats. The veto issue may be postponed for ten years — but what then?
“This is an initiative that should be resisted by the United States with special vehemence,” says Ted Carpenter. For if the veto were eliminated, the United States would face the prospect of having other countries make key determinations that affect us without our consent.
THE Commission also wants to strengthen “global civil society,” which, it explains, “is best expressed in the global non-governmental movement.” Today, there are nearly 15,000 NGOs. More than 1,200 of them have consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (up from 41 in 1948). The CGG wants NGOs to be brought formally into the UN system (no wonder Kenneth Minogue calls this Acronymia). So it proposes that representatives of such organizations be accredited to the General Assembly as “Civil Society Organizations” and convened in an annual Forum of Civil Society.
But how would these representatives be selected? This June, the General Assembly held a session on environmental issues called Earth Summit +5. President Razali selected a number of representatives from the NGOs and the private sector for the exclusive privilege of speaking in the plenary sessions.
“I have gone to a lot of trouble with this, choosing the right NGOs,” he declared. So whom did he choose?
Among others: Thilo Bode, executive director of Greenpeace, to represent the scientific and technological community; Yolanda Kakabadse, the president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; and “from the farmers, I have chosen an organic farmer, Denise O’Brien from the United States, who is a member of the Via Campesina.” In what sense are these people “representative”? Whom do they > represent? Were the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of Toshiba, and the president of the Farm Bureau all too busy to come talk to the General Assembly?
Another example of how this selection process operates was the “great civil society forum” convened at the behest of Strong’s Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International this past March. Some five hundred delegates met, supposedly to assess the results of the Earth Summit, but in reality to condemn the “inaction” of signatory countries in implementing the Rio treaties. The delegates were selected through a process based on national councils for sustainable development, themselves set up pursuant to the Earth Summit. Membership in these councils means that an organization is already persuaded of the global environmental crisis. So you can bet that the process did not yield many delegates representing business or advocating limits on government power.
This kind of international gabfest is, of course, a sinister parody of democracy. “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.)
Hilary French, Vice President of the alarmist Worldwatch Institute, justifies this revealingly as “a paradox of our time . . . that effective governance requires control being simultaneously passed down to local communities and up to international institutions.” Paradoxically or not, the voters hardly appear in this model of governance. It bypasses national governments and representative democracy in order to empower the sort of people who are willing to sit in committee meetings to the bitter end. Those who have better things to do — businessmen, workers, moms — would be the losers in the type of centralized decentralization envisioned by Worldwatch. The result would be decisions reached by self-selecting elites. In domestic politics, we have a name for such elite groups — special interests.
ANOTHER CGG recommendation is that the old UN Trusteeship Council “be given a new mandate over the global commons.” It defines the global commons to include the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environmental systems that contribute to the support of human life. A new Trusteeship Council would oversee “the management of the commons, including development and use of their resources . . . [and] the administration of environmental treaties in such fields as climate change, biodiversity, outer space, and the Law of the Sea.”
It is hard to see what this expansive definition would exclude from the jurisdiction of the Trusteeship Council. Biodiversity encompasses all the plants and animals on the earth, including those that live in your backyard. Will UN troops swoop in to stop you from cutting down trees on your property? Doubtless not. But a recent case near Yellowstone National Park may be a foretaste of how international agencies can meddle in U.S. domestic affairs.
Yellowstone has been designated a “World Heritage Site.” These Sites are natural settings or cultural monuments recognized by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as having “outstanding universal value.” Sites are designated under a Convention ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1973, and it is possible to place such sites on a “List of World Heritage Sites in Danger.”
In this case, a mining company wanted to construct a gold mine outside the boundaries of Yellowstone. The normal environmental review of the project’s impact was still proceeding under U.S. law. But a group of environmentalist NGOs opposed to the mine were not content to wait for that review to take its course. They asked that members of the World Heritage Committee come to Yellowstone to hold public hearings. George Frampton, the Clinton Administration’s Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, wrote to the WHC saying: “The Secretary [Bruce Babbitt] and the National Park Service have clearly expressed strong reservations with the New World Mine proposal.” Frampton added: “We believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and that the committee should be informed that the property as inscribed on the . . . List is in danger.” Four officials of the WHC duly came to Yellowstone and held hearings. And at its December 1995 meeting in Berlin, the Committee obligingly voted to list Yellowstone as a “World Heritage Site in Danger.”
“It was, in my opinion, a blatantly political act,” declared Rep. Barbara Cubin (R., Wyo.) during congressional hearings about the listing. “It was done to draw attention, public reaction, public response, and public pressure to see that the mine wasn’t developed.” Jeremy Rabkin, a Cornell political scientist, agrees that the international listing of such sites “provides an international forum through which to put pressure on U.S. policy.”
Would the mine really have endangered Yellowstone? We’ll never know. The environmental-impact statement was never issued, and, under pressure, the mining company accepted a $65-million federal buyout plus a trade for unspecified federal lands somewhere else. Thus, even with no enforcement power, this UN dependency was able to make land-use policy for the United States.
These events prompted Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) to introduce the American Land Sovereignty Act. With 174 co-sponsors to date, the Act aims to “preserve sovereignty of the United States over public lands and . . . to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands surrounding those public lands.” Congress would have to approve on a case-by-case basis land designations made pursuant to any international agreements.
But is U.S. sovereignty really in danger? In an interview, Strong dismissed Young’s anxieties. “I do not share his concern. It is no abdication of sovereignty to exercise it in company with others, and when you’re dealing with global issues that’s what you have to do.” He continues: “If you put yourself in a larger unit, of course, you get some advantages and you give up some of your freedom. And that’s what’s happening in Europe, that the states of Europe have decided that overall they’re better off to create a structure in which they give up some of their national rights and exercise them collectively through the Union.”
This example of the European Union, however, worries Ambassador Lichenstein. The EU’s bureaucracy in Brussels, he complains, “is responsible to no one. Governments get together — foreign ministers, finance ministers — they presumably hand down the guidelines, but don’t kid yourself, the bureaucrats are running things.”
The Yellowstone case is an example of how “feel-good” symbolism about the environment can be transformed into real constraints upon real people imposed outside the law, with no democratic oversight and no means of redress. Ironically, Strong himself had a run-in with Colorado environmentalists over local water rights. They did not have the wit to call in an international agency against the New Age rancher — or maybe they realized that Strong was one property owner whose rights the UN would respect.
AS troubling as the Yellowstone incident is, much greater potential for mischief lies in a new series of “framework treaties” designed to handle global environmental issues. Initially, the treaties called for voluntary actions by governments and set up a consultative process. But environmental activists like Hilary French know very well how this process works. “Even though it can look disappointing, the political will created [by these framework conventions] can lead to commitments of a more binding nature,” she said. This is already happening.
“Although its declaration of principles was transparently aspirational, the 1972 Stockholm world conference on the human environment is generally recognized as a turning point in international environmental-protection efforts,” wrote Peter Spiro. “From it emerged a standing institution (the UN Environment Program); weak but more focused ‘framework’ treaties followed, which in turn are being filled out by specific regulatory regimes. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer itself included no obligations, but the 1987 Montreal protocols and subsequent amendments set a full phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances by 1996.
The regime covers 132 signatories with a total population of 4.7 billion people. Between 1987 and 1991, global CFC consumption was in fact reduced by half. A similar filling-out process is likely to occur with the biodiversity and climate-change conventions signed at Rio.” The “conventions” that Spiro was talking about emerged from the Earth Summit chaired by Maurice Strong. They deal with two of the alleged global environmental crises — global warming and species extinction.
At the time of the Earth Summit, some scientists predicted on the basis of climate computer models that the earth’s average temperature would increase by 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century because of the “greenhouse effect.” These predictions are controversial among scientists. And as the computer models are refined, they show that the atmosphere will warm far less than originally predicted. Furthermore, more accurate satellite measurements show no increase in the average global temperature over the last two decades. Finally, an important study published in Nature concluded that even if the warming predictions are right, it could well be less costly to allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise for a decade or more because technological innovations and judicious capital investment will make it possible to reduce them far more cheaply at some point before they become a significant problem. In other words, we needn’t take drastic and costly action now.
The process forges ahead anyway. The Framework Convention on Global Climate Change signed by President George Bush at the Rio Earth Summit is already beginning to harden. Initially, countries were supposed voluntarily to reduce by the year 2000 the “greenhouse gases” to the level emitted in 1990. Then, a year ago, at a UN climate-change meeting in Geneva, the Clinton Administration offered to set legally binding limits on the greenhouse gases the United States can emit. In June of this year, at the UN’s Earth Summit +5 session, President Clinton reaffirmed this commitment. And mandatory limits on carbon emissions are to be finalized at a global meeting of Convention signatories in Kyoto this December.
Estimates of the costs to the United States of cutting emissions range from $90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs. Global costs would be proportionately higher. Yet while the U.S. may be committing itself to limits, 130 developing nations, including China and India, are excluded under the Framework Convention from having to reduce their emissions, which, on present trends, will outstrip those of the industrialized world early in the next century. If the U.S. and other industrial countries have to limit energy use while the Third World is exempt, many industries will simply decamp to where energy prices are significantly lower.
If they are permitted to do so. For, as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) asked at a conference on “The Costs of Kyoto” held by the Competitive Enterprise Institute: “Who will administer a global climate treaty? . . . Will we have an international agency capable of inspecting, fining, and possibly shutting down American companies?” Sen. Hagel is not alone is his concern. In July the U.S. Senate passed 95 to 0 a resolution urging the Clinton Administration not to make binding concessions at the Kyoto conference.
But the climate-change treaty is not the only threat to U.S. interests. Though Mr. Bush refused to sign the Bio-diversity Convention at the Rio Earth Summit — chaired, remember, by GOP contributor Strong — that only delayed things. The Clinton Administration signed shortly after its inauguration. Since the treaty obliges signatories to protect plant and animal species through habitat preservation, its implementation could make the World Heritage Committee’s activities on U.S. land use seem penny-ante by comparison.
MEANWHILE, how much further down the path sketched out by the CGG will the UN reforms developed by Maurice Strong and announced by Kofi Annan last week take us? The most important initiative is the recommendation that the General Assembly organize a “Millennium Assembly” and a companion “People’s Assembly” in the year 2000. (The “People’s Assembly” mirrors the CGG’s “Civil Society Forum” idea — among other things, only accredited NGOs would be invited to advise the General Assembly.) But what would these grand new bodies actually do? The Millennium Assembly would invite “heads of Government . . . to articulate their vision of prospects and challenges for the new millennium and agree on a process for fundamental review of the role of the United Nations [emphasis added].” That last innocuous phrase is diplomatese for opening up the UN Charter for amendment. If that happens, so could anything — notably eliminating the veto in the Security Council.
The Millennium Assembly would also consider adopting Strong’s Earth Charter. For the most part the Charter reads like another feel-good document — its draft says that “we must reinvent industrial-technological civilization” and promises everybody a clean environment, equitable incomes, and an end to cruelty to animals — but we have seen how such vacuous symbolism can have real consequences down the line. Inevitably, the Charter advocates that “the nations of the world should adopt as a first step an international convention that provides an integrated legal framework for existing and future environmental and sustainable-development law and policy.” This is, of course, a charter for endless intervention in the internal affairs of independent states.
Which leaves external affairs. Hey presto! In line with the CGG’s plan, Annan/Strong urge that the UN Trusteeship Council “be reconstituted as the forum through which member states exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment and common areas such as the oceans, atmosphere, and outer space.” For the time being, however, Annan and Strong have avoided calling for global taxes or user fees to finance the UN. One spokesman said that the issue was simply “too hot to handle right now.” What they propose is a Revolving Credit Fund of $1 billion so that the UN will have a source of operating funds even if a major contributor (e.g., the U.S.) withholds contributions for a time. In short, the CGG’s blueprint for a more powerful UN closely resembles the movement to expand the requirements of the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change. While the process may be piecemeal, the goal is clear: a more powerful set of international institutions, increasingly emancipated from the control of the major powers, increasingly accountable not to representative democratic institutions but to unelected bureaucracies, and increasingly exercising authority over how people, companies, and governments run their affairs — not just Americans, but everyone. In short, Col. Qaddafi’s definition of his leftist Green Revolution: “Committees Everywhere.”
If so, the future looks good for Maurice Strong. One UN source suggested that, at the very least, he would like to be made Secretary General of the Millennium Assembly or the People’s Assembly. Others suspect that, even at age 68, Strong is angling to be the next UN Secretary General. Such eminence may help explain a puzzling incident in his early career. Having long had political ambitions, he decided to enter the Canadian Parliament. A candidate was evicted from a safe constituency by the Liberal leadership, and Strong moved in. Then, with only a month to go before the 1979 election, he suddenly pulled out of the race.
Strong’s business deals were especially complicated at the time — he was setting up a Swiss oil-and-gas exploration company with partners that included the Kuwaiti Finance Minister and the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation — and that is the explanation usually given. But maybe he just decided that for a man who wants power, elections are an unnecessary obstacle.
What follows is a summary of and a link to another alarming connection of Maurice’s Strong. Edmund de Rothschild, his involvement with the CO2 Scam and his grab for our money and our food.
From Euro-med.dk: Summary: After Edmund de Rothschild’s statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming – and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to our governments as reimbursement for paid loans. I.e. We give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) – up to 30% of the Earth are meant. If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong. So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are in the the council of the bank – blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! This article brings interviews with a man who was a participant at the 4th World Wilderness Congress,a man who knows what happened there and knew Rothschild personally – as well as David Rockefeller, who tried to threaten him to silence about what he had learned at the Wilderness Congress. The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 – 30 bn over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank. However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported back to the home countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available – with food prices rising rapidly – which is exactly Rothschild’s expectation. This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so – so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild’s New World Order
“ How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth ”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
Here are some videos for you on Maurice Strong. Some we have run before, but we will gladly run them again along with ones new to us. It is so very important for all to realize what is going on here. It is almost too late, but if we speak up loudly and clearly and share what we know with those who are not yet paying attention, we stand a chance.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Last week several Morgan Hill, California, students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo for wearing U.S. flag apparel that offended Latino students. The following day, on May 6, several Latino students walked out of school in response and held a rally in a nearby park.
“We want respect,” the students chant. In the video below, a group of students in a pickup truck drive past the marching Latino students waving American flags. “What followed was an angry confrontation in which both groups of students shouted obscenities at each other,” Brian Shield writes for KRON 4. “No one was arrested and there are no reports of injuries.”
It has yet to be explained by school authorities or the Latino students how wearing or waving American flags “disrespects” them. KRON 4 does not offer an explanation as to why the Latino students decided to walk out of school and march.
“The incident on May 5 at Live Oak High School is extremely unfortunate,” a school administrator explains in a statement. “While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken.”
It appears the Latino students walked out of classes because the students wearing patriotic clothing were not disciplined.
Obviously, the Latino students do not consider themselves Americans. In the above video, the students wave Mexican flags and chant that displaying the American flag is disrespectful of their heritage and sense of Mexican nationalism.
Clearly those in power worthy of being tossed out on their, well, ear, find us a threat. They continue to hurl insults at us repeatedly on any media venue that will host them. This, unfortunately, includes our president, who, again, in a recent interview called us “teabaggers”. Well, Mr. President, I would rather be, in your convoluted rhetoric, be a “teabagging” “wing-nut” than someone like you and your cronnies who seek to destroy our freedoms, our pocketbooks (yes even for those in middle class) and the very foundations which made our country strong.
You can play your little Alinsky games, but in the end America sees through the disgusting tactics you use.
While you taunt us saying we will not remember all this when fall elections come around, how will we be able to forget? At every turn you stab us in the heart and the back, usually at the same time. But, hey, you keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Richard Ebeling at FFF: Economic Liberty Lecture Series
Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty from The Conservative Roundtable
Steven Horwitz at FFF: “Do We Really Need a Central Bank?”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
From our friends at Reason TV, comes this “encyclopedic look at everything from abortion to zoos from an angle consistent with classical liber[tarian] thought and insights.”
Even after the many discussions of late, many still are confused between the meaning of the words liberal and libertarian. The word liberal has been bastardized into what Obama and friends look like today. Where as, libertarians have become basically a branch of the conservative mindset, with many espousing very conservative viewpoints on fiscal and constitutional matters. Socially, most libertarians are of the mindset that one should not hold others to their moral judgements, thus come across as socially liberal. Bottom line- it’s an insult to call a libertarian a “liberal”.
I don’t agree with all the points Jeffrey Miron takes, but I do find this discussion interesting. Just like with every other political party or way of thinking, libertarians do have a range of opinions. However, it would surprise you, if you consider yourself a patriot, how, in general, you may agree with many of the libertarian viewpoints. It’s certainly worth exploring if you have not yet done so. This video should help you understand the political spectrum in general and also offers a more modern approach than what those in governement and media would have you believe:Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Secularstupidest posted this on you tube earlier this week:
It’s a shocking must see video from a recent radical immigration rally in Atlanta, GA.
Everyday this country is looking less and less like the America I thought I knew. Radicals who dispise the constitution surround us. We must stay alert to the threats that seemingly surround us. I know it gets tiring and even depressing, but take a small rest when you have to and then get back in the fight for our country.
This is a modern civil war, my friends.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Remember the push for Audit the Fed and how we got the number of sponsors needed to proceed. That seems like a distant memory now, as Dodd’s reform bill will actually exponentially empower the Fed.
From Campaign For Liberty today:
Despite all the limited government rhetoric you’re hearing from the Republican Party these days, it appears that Senate Republican leaders, including Richard Shelby, are more than ready and willing to work with Chris Dodd to empower the Fed, add more layers of federal bureaucracy to our economy, and set the stage for future crises.
According to Talking Points Memo, Shelby has stated, “We’re very close to a deal and there will be a substantial number of Republicans that go along with it.”
The White House is doing everything it can in the media to cram yet another powergrab down the American people’s throats. A vote could come at any time, so it’s crucial that liberty activists make their voices heard immediately.
Chris Dodd’s legislation, which should be called the “Fed Empowerment Act,” ignores the true cause of the recent financial downturn: interference in our economy and manipulation of our currency by Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve.
For all the talk of “change” in D.C., our elected officials are following the same tired old script: if the federal government created the problem, the only solution must be to give it even more power.
Now Senate leaders want to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be housed in and funded by the Fed.
And the Dodd bill would create a “Financial Stability Oversight Council” that would have the ability to require nonbank financial companies to be under the Federal Reserve’s supervision based not on their current status, but on what effect they may potentially have on the economy!
Who knows how many businesses will soon be targeted and broken up, under the guise of “reform,” solely for standing up to the federal government.
Recently, Washington Examiner journalist Tim Carney has done some terrific work exposing the corporatism behind the White House’s rhetoric.
To see how Obama’s “reform” plan will actually benefit the big banks and Wall Street firms, especially Goldman Sachs, at the expense of smaller companies and the rest of us, read:
Chris Dodd’s legislation, which should be called the “Fed Empowerment Act,” ignores the true cause of the recent financial downturn: interference in our economy and manipulation of our currency by Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve.
Timothy P. Carney: Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street ‘reform’
By: Timothy P. Carney
April 16, 2010
THE ROLE OF INVESTMENT BANKSApril 27, 2010
Fabulous Fab is more frightening than you think
By Lucy Kellaway FT.com (UK)
Published: May 3 2010 03:00 | Last updated: May 3 2010 03:00
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
- CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
- BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
- Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.