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 )
These are very important videos, each about 7 1/2 minutes. This will explain how Government is getting around typical channels to restructure, redistribute our “wealth”.
Some, you know of – The Federal Reserve, Fannie-Freddie. You can see these are not working out very well. However, they are escalating the pace at which these vehicles are being utilized at breakneck speed. Please educate yourself so that we can stop it here and see how the UN is gaining One World Order.
UN System Partners
- Department of Economic and Social Affairs
- Department for Disarmament Affairs
- Department of Political Affairs
- Department of Peacekeeping Operations
- Economic Commission for Africa
- Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
- Economic Commission for Europe
- Executive Office of the Secretary General
- Food and Agricultural Organization
- Global Compact Office
- International Atomic Energy Agency
- International Labour Organization
- Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs
- Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict
- UN Centre for Human Settlements
- UN Programme on HIV/AIDS
- UN Development Programme
- UN Conference on Trade and Development
- UN Industrial Development Organization
- UN Institute for Disarmament Research
- UN Development Fund for Women
- UN Population Fund
- UN Environment Programme
- UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- UN Children’s Fund
- UN Institute for Training and Research
- UN Office on Drug and Crime
- World Food Programme
- World Health Organization
- World Bank
- ABS-CBN foundation
- Aga Khan Foundation
- BBC World Service Trust
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Blue Moon Fund
- Charles Darwin Foundation
- Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund
- Fiorello La Guardia Foundation
- Ford Foundation
- Global Fund for HIV/AIDS
- Green Family Foundation
- Grameen Foundation
- Healing the Divide
- Hewlett Foundation
- Hilton Foundation
- King Baudouin Foundation
- Knowledge Channel Foundation
- LTB Foundation
- Mc Arthur Foundation
- Nike Foundation
- Nuffield Trust
- The Pew Charitable Trusts
- Philantropy Australia
- Public Benefit Foundation
- Qatar Foundation
- Rockefeller Brothers Fund
- Rockefeller Foundation
- Shell foundation
- Soros Foundation
- Starr Foundation
- Tarek Ahmed Juffali Foundation
- UN Association of the USA
- UN Foundation
- Universal Education Foundation
- World Childhood Foundation
Corporations and Companies
- Africa Practice
- American Electrical Power
- Aveda Corporation
- Bank of America
- British Petroleum
- CISCO Systems
- De Beers
- Domini Investment Fund
- G-Star Raw
- Geneva Group International
- Globalegacy International
- Hewlett Packard
- Johnson & Johnson
- Merck & Co
- National Basketball Association
- Ruder Finn
- Standard Chartered Bank
- United Airlines
There is plenty of information in the forum at our sister site, http://www.WatchdogCentral.org on Bilderberg. The information posted here will go into a new forum subfolder called Codex Alimentarius – please add information to that folder as you find it. This column will touch on the basics. There is so many tentacles to this story there is no way it can be covered in full here. In the above clip, she mentions the council of seven men. I don’t know, but if I had to guess, I would say four of the members are Maurice Strong, George Soros, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller. We also have much information about these people on this site, but it is easier to access it through the forum at WatchdogCentral.org. We are aware of several connections between these very same people and companies front and center in the health care field. I also believe it may have been Hillary Clinton of which she spoke in the video above. It could have also been Condoleezza Rice, however. I lean toward Hillary Clinton only because I know she is a self declared progressive and this is a progressive idea. I believe this because of an article I read at the website Coincidence Theories in which a quote appears from her Science and Technology advisors: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”–Dr. Nina Fedoroff at Duke, 2009
These 14 points provide you with understanding about Codex Alimentarius – health freedom threat number one. It also explains what to do about it. Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.
- Consumer Protection? Unfortunately Not
The first step to understanding Codex Alimentarius is to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with “consumer protection”. That’s propaganda for the sake of getting people and Congress to yield to its implementation.
- Says Who?
Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is a successful natural medicine physician who graduated from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970. Dr. Laibow has studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex Alimentarius documentation. Her conclusion? Codex Alimentarius is a very serious threat to health freedom. We must take it seriously.
- Meaning of Name and History of Organization
“Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a “Trade Commission”. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations.
- Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry
The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.
- Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry.
- Based on Tyrannical Napoleonic Legal Code
Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default.
- Shrewdly, Slowly Raising Heat
Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won’t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about “consumer protection”. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies.
- Beware Codex Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is “consumer protection”. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters.
- VMG: Banning Our Supplements
Codex is made up of many standards for every aspect of food. One of these standards was ratified (approved) in July 2005: the destructive Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG). The VMG can ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins & minerals. For example, Vitamin C would be restricted to only a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.
- DSHEA, Our Best Legal Defense
The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex.
- Congressional Effort Underway to Undermine DSHEA
The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to “influence” Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are “dangerous”, and drugs are “proper medicine”. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA.
- U.S. Government Illegally Supports Codex
The U.S. Codex Office (the U.S. Codex “point of contact”) is unfortunately highly supportive of Codex. So is the rest of the government, including the pharmaceutical-friendly FDA. They should not be. DSHEA and other U.S. law means their support is in direct violation of the laws of the U.S.A.! They are breaking our laws and they know it.
- Let’s Enter Coordinal Relationships With Congress
Congress has the power to keep America Codex-free. It can defeat bills designed to destroy DSHEA, support health freedom bills, and reprimand the U.S. Codex Office and the FDA. Using the Internet we can reach Congress directly to create a lobby of the people, for the people. Families of Congress would suffer too, if Codex is not averted.
- Call to Action
Thanks to the Internet, millions of health conscious Americans can unite to protect health freedom from Codex Alimentarius. We have the power to turn Codex into a blessing if all of us in the natural health community use it to get active, get organized, and stand up for health freedom. Together, we will let Big Pharma know that we see through their deception and will protect our access to natural health care.
Decreasing the Surplus Population
Of course, a state that has unqualified authority over life is a state that has no scruples reducing the quantity of life in order to increase the quality of life (for those who are left). Though this sounds like something from the Gulags or Nazi Germany, it is actually the operating assumption behind those political and financial gurus who have recently been calling for a massive decrease in the “surplus population.” Consider that:
- In an interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
- Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics recently suggested that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. (Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.) Similarly, a 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, calls for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring’s carbon dioxide emissions. Parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. (See Steve Watson’s article ‘Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground‘)
- In its autumn 2009 edition (Issue 10), Salvo magazine reported that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come up with a new way to reduce poverty: reduce poor people. The campaign, which has been supported by Bill Gates, does so by supporting and funding coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns. (See Stephen Moore’s article Don’t Fund UNFPA Population Control). In this regard, it should not be overlooked that many have warned that ‘Agenda 21′ of the United Nations Division For Sustainable Development also has population control implications.
- In a 1981 interview which is quoted here, Thomas Ferguson of the State Department Office of Population Affairssaid “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it..”
- Population control seems to be the pet topic among those men who control much of the world’s wealth. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Ted Turner have all spoken publically in favour of drastically reducing the human species, and supported programs designed to eliminate the excess in babies. For example, in 1996, Ted Turner stated that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” (See Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Save The Planet)
- College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should “maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.
- The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world’s population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. As Laurence Hecht reminds us, this has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.
- Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, “Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”
- Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”
- Dr. Henry Kissinger has said “World population needs to be decreased by 50%.”
- Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, “That’s the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto.” “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” (Taken from Population Control…Just a Conspiracy Theory, Right?)
- President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The underlining premise behind all of the above is the same premise that undergirded the 20th century eugenics movement, namely the idea that irresponsible individualism in breeding is a cancer on the human population, harming posterity. Government, not God, holds the future of the human race in its reigns and can save us, quite literally, by strategic intervention designed at reducing the surplus population. Building on Rousseau’s idea that life, liberty and property are given to us by the state for the sake (not of the individual) but of the general will of the whole, it is no small step to believe that these privileges can be revoked as soon as too much life threatens the health of the collective.
More information can be found on Dr. Laibow’s website here , including the article Nightmare on Elm Street’s Dinner Table. Thank you, Monsanto! Rima E. Laibow, MD There is also a movie in my video bank about Monsanto, called Controlling Our Food. You can reach this off the Vodpod Bank to the right of this post, or on WatchdogCentral in our video bank.
I will try to keep abreast of this issue for you, but please, help me by posting information in the folder on the WatchdogCentral.org forum.
To get caught up, the best starting point is the forty minute speech Dr. Laibow gave at the NANP Conference in 2005. This speech is very important and will go a long way to help you understand the importance of the subject of Codex Alimentarius, which involves every bit as much corruption as Global Warming and Cap and Trade, except here we are talking about your food, your ability to protect yourself, if you so choose, against toxins, growth hormones, etc..and impacts your ability to purchase simple vitamins and nutrients.
I would like to thank Scott Groves for bringing this to my attention.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )
How interesting it was to come across this post today from The Met Office in Britain.
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
Then they post a fairly impressive list of scientists, rumored to number around 1700, who “signed” their little statement. Impressive, that is, until you learn The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change. Impressive until you hear one of the signatories told The Times he felt pressured to sign as The Met Office has a history of appointing and working only with scientists who share their views to substantiate man made global warming. Impressive, until see the list of scientists on the other side of the matter, and read some of the comments in the newest update to the Senate Minority Report.
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Here are some comments from the recent update of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report Original Release: December 11, 2008
Presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland
Updated: December 22, 2008; January 27, 2009 & March 16, 2009
Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
Did you take note of the British Court Decision that excoriates Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth?
According to UK’s New Party Website:
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
It goes on to say there were 20 inaccuracies found. Lord Monckton prepared a witness statement for the trial.
Lord Monckton, as discussed here earlier this week, noted in his recent speech, an unbiased forecast puts “global warming” at 0.5 degrees over the next hundred years, a statistically insignificant amount.
Still not convinced? Have you seen the Climategate emails? It had been rumored these were obtained by some mysterious Russian hacker. Truth is, we now learn, the documents came to light by the hands of a whistleblower on the inside. Although this puts to rest the reasoning behind the Lame Stream Media’s attempt to sequester the emails, not printing them because they were illegally obtained, most have yet to put them on display. They are on display here by clicking the link earlier in this paragraph.
In an interesting column, John Coleman – KUSI-TV, Weather Channel Founder, posted on What’s Up With That, a top tier scientific blog the following:
The 21st century Goliath is Global Warming. It is a powerful six-legged monster. In no order of strength, those legs are:
(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,
(2) The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,
(3) Environmentalists who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more “natural”, primitive lifestyle,
(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,
(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that “the sky is falling” is the best headline of them all,
(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.
The total financial resources and power structure behind Goliath are staggering.
Goliath now occupies Copenhagen. For the 15th time, Goliath is meeting to publicize his long list of threatened consequences if do not head his demands. The ice will melt, the coasts and islands will flood displacing millions and killing tens of thousands; the polar bears and eventually thousands of other species will die as habitats are destroyed; hurricanes will become superstorms wrecking havoc on the coastal cities killing tens of thousands; heat waves will kill more hundreds of thousands as they grip the planet; drought and heat will destroy our agriculture starving untold millions more. He tells us this is because of our carbon footprints left by our burning of fossil fuels emitting exhaust of carbon dioxide.
Fifteen thousand “delegates” are attending Goliath’s conference coming by hundreds of private jet aircraft, riding in over a thousand limos, occupying every hotel room for miles around and all living on expense accounts paid by taxpayers and stock holders. They are making speeches, politicking one another and most importantly negotiating how much the people of each of their nations will reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, having a major impact on all our lifestyles.
Meanwhile, here at home The Environmental Protection Administration, part of Goliath’s government leg, just classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant that is an endangerment to our lives. And the US Congress is working with the President on legislation known as Cap and trade that will make all of us pay taxes for our carbon footprints.
Goliath is a rich and very powerful monster. He thrives on carbon dioxide.
Today we are honored to have a guest blogger with us at Soldier For Liberty: Justin Brown is a freelance writer whose current profession is an Active Duty Infantryman. He has served three tours to Iraq in the last five years and continues to study the inner workings of politics, looking to further educate himself and others on the truth that lies behind the guise of the misleading main media.
The Indoctrination of Youth
By: Justin Brown
Skeptics will state that there is no such thing as the implementation of indoctrinating the children of the United States of America; however from the mouths of government officials, agencies, and past Presidents’, this shows to be far from the actual truth. Do not get me wrong; am I by no means talking down upon the teachers in our education system. I am simply stating that many of us in society are willingly being used to implement the work of those behind the scenes that wish to impose power much greater than the average citizen can even begin to fathom. They do this through television, our educational system, sports, the media, etc. I’d like to place before you just one of the means by which such is and has been implemented for quite a long time. It is known as ideological subversion.
Ideological subversion is a four step plan that has been implemented upon the people for so long that even those teaching such doctrine to our kids, for the most part are unaware that they’re willingly brainwashing our youth. This goes along with them having already been indoctrinated themselves. In instances such as criminal court trials, evidence must be presented; please allow me to show you, the reader, exactly why this is to be very much true. This is but a small piece to a very much larger picture.
Ideological Subversion begins with demoralization. Demoralization begins and is approximately a fifteen to twenty year process. That is approximately the allotted time it takes to educate one generation of students. The agenda of this step is to expose your enemy to your ideology; which in this case is a conglomeration of Marxism/Leninism/Socialism/Fascism made into one single ideology. History has shown that one in and of itself hasn’t been sufficient enough to hold true and rule over a society, but there are strong points to each ideology. Take out the weak and implement the strong points; then, and only then, can you subvert a true government that can overcome the masses, or so the thought goes. According to former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov who worked in the field of subversion stated to the effect; you need to pound it (the enemy’s ideology) into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged; neither by any outside sources nor against the basic ideology that is essentially Americanism or American Patriotism. There are many quotes from prominent sources as to educating and manipulating the youth.
In 1919, United States Communist Party stated “Give us one generation of small children to train to manhood and womanhood and we will set up the Bolshevist form of the Soviet Government.” (“National Republic,” Volume 32, p. 35) Hitler went even further by stating to Hermann Rauschning in 1933 about his youth, “I’m beginning with the young. We older ones are used up… We are rotten to the marrow. We have no unrestrained instincts left. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of the serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them I can make a new world.” (Hitler’s Children, The Hitler Youth and the SS,” by Gerhard Rempel, pp. 1-2) Again in 1939 Hitler again boldly declared, “When an opponent declares ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘your child belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, will stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’ ” (“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany,” by William Shirer, p. 249)
Our greater implementation of indoctrinating the youth came more in force through the Department of Education, which was created in 1980 to make school systems Federally run and regulated, thus taking the power from the states and the people respectively as our Constitution states. The guise is stating that they are state regulated, but with some research, this will show that if implementations aren’t being met on the Federal level than changes will and do occur.
How do we truly know the true nature by which the government has helped at such a feat and that this truly is what they want for the American people? One such quote of proof comes from former President Nixon when he “declared the first five years of a child’s life to be a period of special and specific federal concern.” (“Nixon, the First Year of His Presidency,” by Congressional Quarterly, p. 108) Even looking back further to the Fall of 1970, we can see how serious our government was about this indoctrinating when six children were removed from their parents and placed in a foster home because the parents refused to send them to public school teaching “sex education” in conflict with their religious beliefs. (“The Unseen Hand,” by Ralph Epperson, p. 391) In 1985 Yuri Bezmenov again stated that this had already been completed in the United States and had been going on for 35 years already. Imagine how far we really are now. Mr. Bezmenov states, “Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards… Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person, who is demoralized, is unable to assess true information; truth and facts tell nothing to him…even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he, he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.”
Another huge step in our indoctrination was through the new found thought (at the time) of global disaster by which human’s were to be made responsible. This implementation is known as Agenda 21; a 40 chapter document delineating the plan for literally taking over the world. It was signed into United States acceptance in 1992 through the United Nations for a Brave New World. One such implementation of this is a principle known as the “Cautionary Principle” by which you’re guilty until proven innocent. We can now see the full initiative of this through the International Criminal Court Association. This will flow through the Transnational United Nations by which our Federal Government wants very much to be a part of. Sanctions are being opened up once again for this by President Obama after President Bush surprisingly took it off the table, worried that we troops would fall under this while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another principle through Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development. Some things that aren’t sustainable according to this document include fossil fuels, private property, golf course, ski lodges, consumerism, farmlands, pastures, grazing of livestock, the family unit, etc. In order to initiate such a feat, you must first indoctrinate the young to believe that they are the cause of all of this; once you’ve initiated such than you can work at ridding such thoughts from societies mind into believing it must be done for the better good. Just how involved is our government in wanting this. One such statement from Bush Sn. says it all. At the U.N. Conference for the implementation of Agenda 21 he stated, “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” (“Controlled Chaos,” by Michael London, p. 292) After Bush Sn. Brought this back to America, Bill Clinton; then by Executive Order, without Congressional approval established the Presidents Council for Sustainable Development for exactly this. (“Environmental Policy and Politics: Toward the Twenty-First Century,” by Michael Kraft, p. 192)
Further specifics on how they’ve used this document occur by those who help implement the curriculum in our school systems. Agenda 21 has been studied closely; the government then implements it in our school systems and the slow indoctrination of how they train us up as puppets begins (or began so long ago). Goals within Agenda 21 include the end to National Sovereignty (Copenhagen Agreement), the end of Private Property, the Restructure of the Family Unit (Using Darwinism/Humanism in schools as a stepping stone which takes spirituality out and implements the carnal nature of animal in its place), and increasing restrictions on freedoms and mobility by which there is an opportunity to advance in one’s life.
Humanism is very much in our Educational systems as well; this along with Communism are the planks by which it functions. In fact one of the 34 signers of this Humanist Manifesto was none other than John Dewey who is also known as the “Father of Progressive Education.” In fact Mr. Dewey was polled for the most influential educator over the last 50 years, from 1924 to 1974. One quote about Mr. Dewey and his influence on education states, “No individual has influenced the thinking of American educators more.” The Humanism Manifesto II was then published in 1974 and states the Humanist agenda is “the building of a world community,” predicated upon, “the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.” (“The Unseen Hand,” by Ralph Epperson, pp. 378-381)
The next step is destabilization. This takes approximately the next two to five years. The essentials that are at stake include economy, foreign relations, and defence systems. The economy must be brought to the verge of crisis; this is the third step by which after crises you then have normalization as the final step. This step could last forever, or so the thought goes. At the brink of these crises, the mass must be promised all kinds of things whether they’ll be fulfilled or not. This is to eliminate the compromise of a free market economy (Bail Outs) and to put a big brother government in Washington D.C. (The Patriot Act).
Looking further into the third step; crises we can see some interesting details from history. Much like our Bail Out, with another one soon to follow; Mussolini did this in 1935. He bailed out Auto Manufacturer Alfa Romero and then supplanted the government to control such, thus taking away much of the free market economy. We’ve done this Fascist feat here in America and have taken it a step further by adding in the banks; while many ignorant (unknowledgeable) American’s applaud at such an Unconstitutional agenda. Big brother is very much in control now too, with the implementation of the Patriot Act so long ago. The only changing aspect to this is that it continues to get more and more pervasive within the confines of our everyday lives. This again happened in Germany with the burning down of the Reichstag Parliamentary Building, by which the Enabling Act of 1933 was enacted just like ours of today over the tragic 9/11. The Enabling Act gave Hitler and the once Democratic government total control over the people much like our Patriot Act already has today; sadly while many applaud at such a thing, believing it’s for the greater good of protecting the people against a war on a military tactic.
Mr. Bezmenov also added in 1985, civil rights movements are instrumental in the destabilization process of a nation; though after complete takeover they’re no longer needed because they know too much. History shows this has also again happened in Germany with the SA (Storm Troops). Before 1933, both the HJ (Hitler’s Youth) and the SS (The Elite Echelon) were involved, creating viable political organizations within the much larger confines of the SA until 1934. During the summer of this year Himmler and the SS were used as assassins to rid the regime of high officials in the SA, these men of course that had worked with Hitler to his grand rising. This was known specifically as the “Blood Purge” and the SA were prevented specifically by the aid of Himmler from every attaining nearly the amount of power as they had before this “Blood Purge.” (“The SS, Alibi of a Nation,” by Gerald Reitlinger, p. 71)
Much like the political organizations that were created back then are used in the same sense today; so as to further subvert the minds of Americans throughout with false Marxist/Leninist/Socialist/Fascist ideology, amalgamated into looking toward this now very apparent One World Government/Ideology. Those in power study such events feverishly in an attempt to resubvert such a thing in America so as to bring upon this One World Government, which they’re now publicly stating we’re about to have. Sadly, with the creation of television this has been made quite easy. Not only can the elite enjoy the comfort at knowing the mass of children are being indoctrinated at school; they can further enjoy the reality that the average child in America now spends an average of five hours a day watching television once they get home.
The final step will soon be upon us unless people begin further awaking to what’s going on; normalization of people. This last phase will ultimately result in the One World Government. The crisis was 9-11 and began there; these other crisis such as unemployment, health care, false flag war on a military tactic, and the global warming hoax, are all serving the respective purposes. Once we’re in normalization, we’ll either become a part of this new Regime or we’ll be exterminated; at least that’s what history tells us along with people that work in high places like John Holdren, David Rockefeller and many others that incorrectly state killing us off is a necessity if we’re to keep this planet alive. This will further subvert us into the ultimate slavery with the promise of change and hope. Sadly, we’re fast tracking such a feat, at a level that the elites cannot even believe.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a “climate emergency.” As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the “trigger” placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a “climate emergency” if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.
That figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that’s the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty’s torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.
The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared “climate emergency,” to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions … to address shortfalls” in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
What the “appropriate actions” might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.
Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says “this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts” packed by liberal Democrat appointees.
“Environmental groups have been working to deny grazing rights to America’s ranchers for decades. They do so by claiming violations of environmental policy, suing federal environmental agencies and ultimately, tying up ranchers’ time and resources in costly, and often baseless, court battles,” said Jeff Faulkner, Western Legacy Alliance (WLA) member. “What makes this situation worse is the fact that these environmental groups such as Western Watersheds Project and the Center for Biological Diversity are shaking down federal government programs so they can access taxpayer dollars to fund their radical agendas.”
Two of the federal programs that are seemingly handing out millions, and possibly billions, to environmental groups are the EAJA and the Judgment Fund.
The EAJA was established approximately 30 years ago by Congress to ensure that individuals, small businesses and/or public interest groups with limited financial capacity could seek judicial redress from unreasonable government actions that threatened their rights, privileges or interests.
According the U.S. Department of the Treasury website, the Judgment Fund, which was created in the 1960’s, “…is available for most court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government. Congress has added a number of administrative claim awards (settlements by agencies at the administrative level, without a lawsuit). The Judgment Fund has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate funds to it annually or otherwise. Moreover, disbursements from it are not attributed to or accounted for by the agencies whose activities give rise to awards paid. Absent a specific statutory requirement, the agency responsible is not required to reimburse the Judgment Fund.”
Since 2003, the Judgment Fund has paid out $4.7 billion in judgments, including the reimbursement of attorney’s fees. It appears environmental groups have accessed millions of taxpayer dollars from this fund; however, the Web site reporting these payments does not indicate to whom the payments were made or for what purpose. Additional investigation reveals that the same environmental groups benefiting from EAJA payments are accessing the Judgment Fund to millions of dollars each year.
An article at Fox News about the open letter noted:
American taxpayers are being forced to fund thousands of lawsuits filed against the federal government by environmental organizations — with their lawyers clocking thousands of hours and charging fees of up to $650 an hour.
The U.S. government hands out millions of dollars each year to various environmental organizations to help protect fish, wildlife and other aspects of the environment. And every year, those same groups spend millions suing the government over everything from forest policy and carbon emissions to water quality and wolf habitats.
Who paid the attorneys fees? The American taxpayers did.
In the lucrative world of environmental law, the biggest defendant is the federal government, and taxpayers foot the bill. The nation’s ten largest environmental groups have sued the government more than 3,000 times in a nine-year period, according to legal fund the Western Legacy Alliance, an Idaho-based legal fund that defends ranchers and farmers.
Now, the growing number of cases is beginning to attract the attention of some lawmakers in Congress.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., has written to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation, pointing out that much of the money being paid comes out of the Equal Access to Justice Act fund, which Congress set up for the indigent and public interest groups to recover legal fees.
Right now, the government does not account for how much is paid out to whom or for what reason.
“These are taxpayer dollars that are being used by the federal government to compensate people who have sued the federal government. I believe that taxpayers have the right to know who those people are and how much they’ve been paid,” Lummis told Fox News.
They should not expect any help from the current Administration, however.
Bloomberg noted: Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the “political problem” of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and donate $100 million to an environmental advisory group to aid policymakers. [He] announced the investment in Copenhagen on Oct. 10 at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate. The group is an international association made up of 430 newspapers from 150 countries.
…Soros’s announcement comes two months before 190 nations will gather in the Danish capital for a final round of negotiations on a new climate treaty that includes provisions to finance clean- energy projects in developing nations. Talks last week in Bangkok were marked by a dispute between richer and poorer nations over whether to renew or abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming.
Soros, 79, also will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization to which he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years.
Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The sphere is expanding for several reasons.
- All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
- Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
- Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
- Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
- Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
- Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.
Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.
The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
The paper goes on to discuss, at length the individual emails, and if you have not yet seen them, I urge to to follow the link.
In Australia, where the story first broke, the Herald Sun noted:
…So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down skeptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.
Not surprising, then, that Steve McIntyre reports:
Earlier today, CRU cancelled all existing passwords. Actions speaking loudly.
Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – one of the world’s leading alarmist centers – and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.
The ethics of this are dubious. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion – sometimes called “peer review”. Or even conspiracy.
“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.
“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”
While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.
So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.
I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.
The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).
Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:
Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.
Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.
Maurice Strong– former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.
Mikhail Gorbachev– CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.
Diego Hidalgo– CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.
Ervin Laszlo– founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.
Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honor.
Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations “Champion of the Earth”
The Dalai Lama – The ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
David Rockefeller– CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.
Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.
Kofi Annan– former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.
Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway
Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.
Father Berry Thomas– Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.
Stephen Schneider– Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.
Bill Clinton– former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.
Jimmy Carter– former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist
Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons‘ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.
OTHER CURRENT INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)
Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and ‘evoluntionary economist’
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
While I can not prove this next statement, my gut tells me President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the promise of his signature on UN Kyoto Protocol treaty in December of this year at COP 15 in Copenhagen. Look at all the Peace Prize recipients on the list.
The pieces now begin to fall into place. I will spend the next several days, laying out pieces of this for you in as much as I can.
If you have anything to contribute to this, please leave your information in the comment section. I am merely a citizen like you, with a full time job. Any help that can be given to me would be appreciated.
Time is short. Please, tell everyone you know, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Please point them here. We will try to learn about this together, quickly. I will be posting additional information on this daily until it’s all laid out.
Saturday is the 64th anniversary of the UN. I will be in my hometown protesting with a few others that understand what is happening. It only takes one to protest. Call your friends. Hold up signs. “Say no to Agenda 21- Tell our President NOT TO SIGN AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY IN DECEMBER OR EVER”. As I say repeatedly, change starts with YOU.
No matter what side of the proverbial fence you are on, I’ll bet this is not Change You Can Believe In!
- The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
- According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
- Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “. .. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
- Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement if Sustainable Development.
- And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped — even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established — and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
- That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy — just in case.
- In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.
- Now they have taken this and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment — and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.
- Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.
- Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda…
- The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction...
- Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” …
- Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership….
- Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships…
- Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other…
- “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. (hello, can anyone say Cass Sunstein??…are we ‘getting it’ yet?)…
- Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights — as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks”Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”…
- The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only — with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
In walks Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY
While Americans clearly voted for change in the last election, I am not sure this is the change they meant. No matter, they are hoisting it up on us like a speeding bullet ! Change is almost here. All it will take is “Cap and Trade”, “Health Care Reform” and “Card Check” to pass. Please do a search on my site if you would like to know any more about these PENDING bills.
This started many years ago- and yes, it takes about 20 years for fundamental change to take place. While it started with the GATT agreement of 1947, it moved on from there. Slowly at first, but then under George Bush, Sr., then President Clinton, things started moving more quickly. NAFTA, WTO, First they made it possible for our manufacturing to move away. While we were all screaming ” Why isn’t our government securing our jobs? … Why are they making trade regulations so unfair to American workers?.. Why do corporations moving jobs overseas still get tax breaks”.. Well, all these years later, our worst fears are being realized. Now the only large scale manufacturing left is owned by the Government. The rest will soon follow or die.
Then, the started ebbing away at our 401K plans. Black Monday, October, 1987. Then over-valuation that caused the “Internet bubble”, and on from there to where we are now with much of the citizen’s wealth deteriorated to the point where many have to work years later than anticipated. But, that was not enough. We still had our homes. About twenty years ago, even after the Savings and Loan Crisis, they started making it easier for money to be lent. It was like giving candy to a baby. No longer did we all attempt to pay off our homes in 30 years. They made it easy for us to roll consumer debt into our mortgages. This went on for several years until it became more prevalent that most did not own their homes outright nor even hold the majority equity. Even though Appraisers were screaming about the abuses that were going on in the marketplace – no one would listen. I believe that is because it was part of the plan all along. Let’s not forget the “Progressive Agenda” started to rear it’s ugly head against our Constitution under Teddy Roosevelt. Eventually, in 1921, the Council for Foreign Relations was formed (see previous articles on my site) and real “progress” began. It was slow enough so we would not put the pieces together. Until Obama. They are so close now, they feel comfortable wearing their arrogance on their sleeve. To get a very good feel for how we got here, allow me to recommend another article by Henry Lamb. http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews12.htm
Make NO mistake. This is a GLOBAL INITIATIVE. Much of the wealth lies here and so does the legacy of the Founding Fathers. We are a tough nut to crack, so they must use code, back door allegiances, and a bit of magic. There’s so much going on now it is hard for anyone that must work to pay attention. It is my personal belief that the whole “women’s rights” movement of the 1970’s was also a part of the plan. Why would they want mothers in schools watching them indoctrinate our children? Why would they want mothers home all day so they could pay attention to what is going on in the neighborhood or Washington DC. So, what better way than to say to women.. you are not equal, let’s make you equal. We were equal all along, it was they that treated us unequally. But instead of changing themselves (which is not what it was about), they FUNDAMENTALLY changed this country… with our help. They made us feel bad if we CHOSE to stay home with our kids, then they made it all but impossible. Another reason to allow debt to be built up. We would have to occupy ourselves with work outside the home, in addition to the work inside the home and the children. No time to go over every little spec of instructional material they were cramming down our children’s throat. No time to find out they were not teaching our children about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers any longer. No time to realize the UN and the Teachers Union were implementing a whole new agenda. (Give your kids and Grandkids a copy of The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen and ask them to read it )
Our Government now owns our banks, too, right? Well, actually the banks own the government. That is a whole set of novels unto itself. However, this all started with the implementation of the FED. A very good book on this subject is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G.Edward Griffin. This has been going on since the progressives took over the country in 1913, under Wilson, with the institution of the Fed giving the banks the ability to manipulate the money supply. Catapulted further under FDR, who gave up tying our money supply to the gold standard in 1933. Then paper money no longer became backed by silver under Johnson, meaning it was purely a fictional piece of paper we could pretend was actual money. This gave the FED power to print away with nothing to stop them from manipulating the money supply at their whim. Now today we see, they can print money hand over fist without answering to anyone. The only one paying any attention today is China. Why, because they see where first Bush and now Obama are leading us. By printing money without limit, by running up the deficit to levels which can never be paid back, by devaluing our currency and instituting hyper-inflation (coming soon to a neighborhood near you), they thereby initiate another CRISIS, causing us to have no other choice but to leave our dollar for a world wide currency. This is already being discussed by Europe and the UN. That will spell the end of our sovereignty. We are already funding the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Your tax dollars hard at work, just not for you.
The United Nations is heavily involved and is leading the crunch against America. Most of their current agenda surrounds Global Governance, or put another way – death to American Sovereignty. I would like to direct your attention to a small piece of that – The Marrakech Process- by reading The Marrakech Memorandum. This was discussed in the article I mentioned earlier at RecycleWashington.com . You can find out more about it’s TEN YEAR PLAN to global governance at their website: http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/
So, what could possibly get in their way? Well, citizens, of course. That’s why they had to poke fun of the Townhallers and the Tea Party participants. Why they GROSSLY underestimated attendance at the March on Washington DC a few weeks ago. Why the media can not report it. Why no real journalist can talk about it (even OReilly). Most of the media belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, by the way. It’s all part of the gig and the media is in on it. That’s why they have worked for years on fine tuning the Martial Law regulations, and, not to sound crazy, but why they are currently hiring internment specialists (really- I saw the ad). Not all the politicians are in on it, but many are. Long term Senators especially. That is why they have to go! The sooner the better! We MUST have term limits, too! NOW!
What else stands in their way? Oh, yeah, THE INTERNET! TALK RADIO! That is why the FCC is attempting an agenda currently to control both. An agenda already in progress. Do NOT let it happen. Pay attention. If they get us there, we’re done. Do not let anything pass in Congress. NOTHING. They are leaving everything open to interpretation, and the interpreter is Cass Sunstein. You may wish to make his acquaintance as well (search prior articles on my site).
While space will not allow every detail, perhaps I have connected enough of the dots for your to see the big picture. All of the stuff that does not make sense, all the trashing of our Constitution, all of the freaks being appointed to high positions… it’s all for the end game. The end game is doing away with any meaningful sovereignty for the US. We are now at a crossroads. If you condone the New World Order/ One World Order thing that puts the crackpots at the UN in charge of you and all you’ll ever be – do nothing. If this seems like a nightmare to you, then you need to get involved NOW! Right NOW! They almost have it. I beg you. Do NOT let them win.
I have recently posted lists of tools you can use to root out the bad guys (located in the Citizen Tools category on right). The trick is to follow the money and watch the regulations. Please give up a few nicities, like watching television a few hours a week or reading that fiction novel. We need all hands on deck. We have been asleep so long they almost have it in the bag. We need to make up for lost time. We need to mobilize and fight back NOW. They are way ahead of us. They have armies and systems in place. Our only saving grace is there are, I believe, more of us than them. This reminds me of a time in our country’s history. How ironic.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 8 so far )
Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner’s conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner “intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.” Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act. Sensenbrenner also wants a congressional investigation of why a global warming study by Alan Carlin, an EPA economist who is a career civil servant, was suppressed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and other senior agency officials. The study warned of seriously damaging economic consequences for small businesses if the agency moved to regulate CO2 gases as illegal emissions under the Clean Air Act. The CO2 gases, which are also produced by humans and other air-breathing creatures when they exhale, are viewed by global warming activists as contributing to the trapping of heat in the atmosphere when carbon-based fuels like oil and coal are burned.
Electric Cars May Shift Our Foriegn Dependence from One Dictator To Another from IBD
The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%… Aside from forcing us into less-safe downsized vehicles that increased highway fatalities, the promise of more miles per gallon caused people to drive more miles. The promised energy independence never materialized in the 70’s as we imported more foreign oil than ever before. Okay, so how about a zero-emission source of electricity — nuclear power? The administration has done little to promote it and recently killed the safest place on the planet to store what is erroneously called nuclear waste — at the nuclear repository that was being built at Yucca Mountain, Nev. This “waste” is in the form of spent fuel rods the French and others have safely stored and reprocessed. These rods still contain most of their original energy and reprocessing them makes nuclear power renewable as well as pollution-free. The French get 80% of their electricity from nukes. There are the hazards of the cars themselves, to drivers, passengers and first responders. Then there’s a whole new problem of disposing of a new generation of batteries using lithium. As for the lithium, Bolivia, under the thumb of its leftist leader Evo Morales, has about half the world’s proven reserves. “The United States has supplies of lithium, but if demand for lithium exceeded domestic supplies,” warns the GAO, “the U.S. could substitute reliance on one foreign source (oil) for another (lithium).”
Lindsay Grahm May Support Sotomayor – Drop him an email at http://lgraham.senate… and tell him he is a traitor!
‘The only way she can get derailed is if she performs poorly next week,” acknowledged Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Senate Judiciary Committee member. He said he was still undecided, but added, “I honestly think I could vote for her.” (Ed note- so apparently reverse discrimination and activist judges are no problem for Lindsay Graham)
Obama’s Ambitious U.N. Treaty Agenda By Cliff Kincaid
…Senate Democrats have another vote for the U.N.’s Law of Sea Treaty, and there are strong indications that they intend to bring this controversial document up for a vote within days or weeks. Those who favor the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) believe that U.S. security lies in passing a treaty and hiring more lawyers to defend America before an international tribunal, rather than building more ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. The anticipated vote on the treaty follows a strong recent push for ratification from the Council on Foreign Relations and newspaper ads in favor of the treaty from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a $5 billion non-profit entity. Plus, the Obama State Dept. sent a document to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 11 that declared UNCLOS to be a top priority for the administration. In fact, Obama’s submission to the Foreign Relations Committee names 17 treaties that he wants ratified. So rather than build more ships, we will depend on a piece of paper from the U.N. to safeguard U.S. national security.
Time to De-Centralize American Power By JB Williams
..The United States of America has officially reached the moment in history when the centralized power vested in 546 career politicians no longer serves the best interests of more than 300 million legal American citizens. The federal government no longer exists at the pleasure of the states and their people, but rather as a dysfunctional global dictatorship, an oligarchy of 546 career political thugs ruling with an iron fist over 300 million dissenting subjects. The Founding Fathers knew that this day would come and they prepared accordingly. “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, [life, liberty and the individual freedom to define and pursue happiness] it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” – Declaration of Independence. The real power of the people is not in their vote or even the money they send politicians at election time. It’s in their ability to use their local state legislators to force the Fed back into compliance with the contract between the states, the Constitution… If you want your country back, you will have to take it back. (Ed note.. 39 states, including Michigan now have sovereignty legislation pending)
Former Acorn Employee Rethinking It’s Value by Kevin Mooney
MonCrief is a former employee of ACORN and Project Vote affiliate who offered testimony last year in Harrisburg, Pa. as part of an election law suit filed against them. “I’ve always been an outsider in my party because I ask a lot of questions and I didn’t like some of the answers I’ve been getting,” she said. “The problem I have with Democrats is that they promise you the world but then they don’t deliver. I identify now with conservative ideas because the answer is not social welfare. The answer instead comes from being less dependent on the government and keeping families together.” Food stamp and housing assistance programs, for instance, do not provide people with an incentive to get married and to keep husbands and wives together, she said.
Barney Frank: Let’s spend TARP profits before taxpayers can get them by Byron York at the Washington Examiner
The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Frank introduced the “TARP for Main Street Act,” a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats. Last month, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, through June 12, 2009, the government had received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. The original TARP legislation required that money made from the program “shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.” Frank, however, wants to spend the money before it can be used to pay down anything…..
ACORN’s “Muscle for Money” does the bidding of SEIU By Kevin Mooney at the Washington Examiner
Corporate and political officials who defy workplace and community organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit advocacy group. It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started, and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). Muscle for Money includes multiple techniques for creating highly aggressive, organized efforts both to pressure businesses and officials to support the activists’ agenda or to discredit and intimidate opponents of their agenda, according to present and former ACORN members.
Obama Adviser Says U.S. Should Mull Second Stimulus By Shamim Adam at Bloomberg
July 7 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President.
The Demise of Newspapers is a Relative Observation by Matt Welch at Reason (Re:RUMOR”S OF ANOTHER BAILOUT RECIPIENT)
In the year of their widely reported death, American newspapers were still making money like oil companies (averaging 12-15%). Which is a relevant observation to consider before we re-think the First Amendment, re-write copyright law to favor newspapers over citizens, dole out corporate subsidies and targeted tax breaks, launch a journalisim stimulus, mimic the European model, sic the FTC on the problem, let John Kerry anywhere near the levers of legislation, or any of the scores of other damn-fool ideas we’ve seen floated this year alone. Follow up article at The Minority Report http://tinyurl.com/nl…
When they, as gatekeepers to the news, find themselves becoming irrelevant, the natural inclination of their kind is to look to government to reinstate their relevance. They see the Fifth Estate as a co-equal branch of the government — and a government paycheck would cement that perception in the minds of the public. That would not be a good thing for our Republic, or for those who still hold some reverence for the United States Constitution.
Judicial Sleight of Hand By Brittany Fortier of AIM
Judge David Hamilton of the Southern District of Indiana, who has been nominated by the Obama administration to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, proposes to bring an even more activist approach to the federal judiciary. For example, in A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, Hamilton issued an injunction against an Indiana law requiring abortion clinics to give women information about alternatives to abortion and requiring an 18-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., points out. He called Hamilton’s ruling “questionable,” while the Seventh Circuit characterized Hamilton’s ruling as “an abuse of discretion.” In Hinrichs v. Bosma, in which the Judge enjoined the Chaplain of Indiana’s House of Representatives from invoking the name of Jesus Christ during prayers offered at official proceedings but later decreed that invoking the name of Allah was nonsectarian, Sen. Inhofe added. Inhofe described this ruling as “extremely naive and dangerous.” According to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), “Despite an American Bar Association (ABA) rating of ‘not qualified,’ Hamilton was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by the Senate on October 7, 1994.” ACLJ notes that the ABA changed their rating of Hamilton to “well qualified” more recently when Hamilton was nominated to the Seventh Circuit.
Gallup sees more Americans moving right By Mark Tapscott at Washington Examiner
Gallup is out today with a new survey showing more Americans are moving to the Right politically than to the Left, including people in all three major groups, Republicans, Independents and Democrats. “Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left, ” the polling organization said in a special report released earlier today.The latest Gallup results also come soon after the organization reported that 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as conservatives, the highest level since 2004. In a masterful piece of understatement, the unnamed author of the Gallup announcement of its specia report results offered this observation:The latest data also strongly suggest not only that the election results of 2006 and 2008 should be read as a stunning rejection of current Republican office-holders and spokesmen, but also that Democrats are wrong to read into those results a mandate for liberal change.
States, Employers Advance with E-Verify While Feds Continue to Obstruct Program at Fair US
While states and employers steadily increase their use of E-Verify — the federal program that allows employers to verify the work eligibility of their new hires — the Obama Administration and congressional leadership appear to be undermining the popular and effective program.