Category Archives: Climate Change

Bill Lockwood: “Mother Earth is Angry?” 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, tells Americans that the raging wildfires that have been burning in her home state of California, are due to a cryptic message that “Mother Earth” is sending Americans. “Mother Earth is angry” she warns. “She’s telling us—whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is … that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

California, Washington, and Oregon have been recently devastated by wildfires. There are currently 29 major wildfires in the Golden State alone, burning an area of more than 4,800 square miles, the AP reported. As of September 14, 35 people have died in the out-of-control wildfires.

What is of more than passing interest is Pelosi’s personification of “Mother Earth” as being “angry” with America, presumably for being so non-cooperative with the United Nations’ globalist agenda on the Environment.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

First, Climate Alarmism is a Socialist Political Plot to Transfer Wealth from America to Third World Countries.  Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new president, refused to allow the United Nations’ COP 25 conference to be held in his country last December, forcing the global socialists to meet in Madrid, Spain. Brazil’s foreign minister, Ernesto Araujo called Climate Alarmism a “Marxist plot” to undermine the West and build up Communist China.

When one reads the UN “Paris Agreement” that was adopted at the UN COP21 Conference, the “Marxist plot” is plainly visible. Setting up boards for “global governance” while finalizing “rules” for a “global common market,” the UN master plan promises to soak the American taxpayer to help pay people in the undeveloped part of the world to “save the climate.”

The UN Boss, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly of Socialist International, has openly declared that “climate action” offers a “compelling path to transform our world.” This will involve planetary taxes levied by a world government upon the United States because of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). These monies will not only strangle our own industry, but be put into a slush fund to pay off dictators in underdeveloped countries.

Second, there is little science is Climate Alarmism. Dr. William Happer, an internationally renown Princeton physicist, recently spoke at COP25. He declared “We are here under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.” Previously he had stated that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be good for the planet and its population. “It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go, as this started out as global warming, then it was climate change or global weirding, now it is climate crisis and climate emergency. What next? But stick around, it will happen.”

Happer is not the only world-class scientist who warns that America is being fooled. Retired MIT Meteorology professor Richard Lindzen has pooh-poohed the entire Climate Alarmism as having little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Socialist politics, that is, promoted and endorsed by the Democratic Party in the United States.

Steven Koonin, former U.S. Department of Energy Undersecretary, has written that climate science isn’t, in fact, settled and that we lack the knowledge needed to make sound climate policy (The Epoch Times, Sep. 9-15, 2020). In one article Koonin wrote:

The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researches challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances, but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.

Third, the American Left has been moving more closely to ancient paganism. One of the most remarkably outstanding features of Pelosi’s dire warning as she “speaks” for “Mother Earth” is this: she attributes goddess-like status on the planet which is messaging us about our climate sins. This is plainly a religious movement. And this, from the same crowd which has flagrantly ridiculed Christians for remotely suggesting that such things as the AIDS epidemic is a retribution from God upon America for its embrace of homosexuality. The legs of the lame are not equal.

Pelosi’s Paganism is idolatry. Idolatry is broadly defined as “the worship of idols, or the act of ascribing to things and persons properties which are peculiar to God alone.” The components of pagan idolatry is a View of the Past (A Cosmogony: how we came to be here); View of the Present (How the world works, including a value system); A View of the Future (What is the end game—the goal). Climate alarmists display all three.

One of the ancient pagan religions in the Old Testament was the worship of Moloch. Moloch, or Molech (1 Kings 11:7) was the god of the Ammonite people who lived next door to Israel, just as Chemosh was the god of Moab.

These gods were worshipped at “high places” throughout the Old Testament period. Connected with these gods was the pantheon of the Canaanites who honored Baal as one of their gods. These idolaters considered the seasonal changes as reflecting their ancient myths and consequently worshipped nature. More horrific still was the fact that these pagan religions all practiced child sacrifice, euphemistically mentioned in the Bible as “passing their children through the fire” (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10).

Ahaz, for example, king of Judah in the 8th century B.C., is said to have made “his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Jehovah cast out from before the children of Israel” (2 Kings 16:3). 2 Chronicles 28:3 confirms the account, adding that there was more than one son whom Ahaz sacrificed. “He burned incense in the valley of the sons of Hinnom (outside the walls of Jerusalem), and burnt his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom Jehovah cast out before the bible children of Israel.” 

Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who would come a bit later, stood at the valley of Hinnom and condemned it in chapter 19 of his book. “Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, that they know now, they and their fathers and the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind …” therefore, “I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again.”

If “Mother Earth” is angry, Nancy Pelosi, perhaps this question should be asked. “Why has she not already been propitiated by the millions of children aborted in America, encouraged and financed by the Democrat Party?” There is no difference in the slaughter of the unborn, overseen by socialists and High Priestesses such as Nancy Pelosi, and the sacrifice of children to Moloch.

A better question is: Isn’t it past time for America to give up its pagan errors and return to Almighty God? 

Alex Newman: UN Throws Cash at North Korea to Fight “Global Warming” 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

A United Nations agency led by a Communist Chinese agent is sending large amounts of American taxpayer money and Western know-how to the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling North Korea, official UN documents show. Officially, at least, the cash and training is supposed to help the brutal regime in Pyongyang fight alleged man-made “climate change” and access even more UN money. But in reality, analysts suggested the UN funding would almost certainly be used to prop up dictator Kim Jong Un’s savage tyranny and lavish lifestyle.

The initial funding will be almost a million dollars, but that round of funds is supposed to help the regime unlock even more going forward. The decision to fund North Korean oppression with Western tax dollars was made last month by the UN “Green Climate Fund” (GCF). The outfit, often ridiculed by critics as the Green Climate Slush Fund to subsidize Third World kleptocrats, is a wealth-transfer mechanism that claims it supports “developing countries” responding to “climate change.” “GCF helps developing countries limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change,” it says online.

As part of that, the GCF approved a program known as “Readiness and Preparatory Support for Capacity Building of NDA (National Designated Authorities) and establishment of a National Strategy Framework for engagement with GCF in the DPRK.” The confusing and deliberately verbose title serves to conceal a simple agenda: Prop up the mass-murdering dictatorship with Western money, technology, and expertise under the guise of battling the mythical bogeyman known as “man-made global warming.”

According to the dictatorship’s request for funds, which has been published online by the GCF, activities under the project will involve developing a “package of training and capacity building exercises.” These training programs will help support the regime to “better coordinate and manage GCF and other climate finance,” and to “better engage with GCF and providers of climate finance.” In other words, a team of UN bureaucrats will be teaching Kim’s minions how to keep the “climate finance” loot flowing from Western taxpayers to his regime.

The lead ministry dealing with the program in Pyongyang will be the Ministry of Land and Environment Protection, according to the regime’s submission. The 43-page document, filed in the summer of 2019, explains that North Korea needs more help preparing to access “climate finance,” and so, the regime will be working with the UN to help “address” the “barriers” that currently exist to accessing even more “climate” loot. Other ministries that will receive support under the plan include those in charge of agriculture, electronic industry, urban management, fisheries, emergency management, and even “academic institutions.”

Leading the scheme on the UN side will be the scandal-plagued UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Last summer that controversial agency, one of the UN’s largest, was brought under control of the Communist Chinese dictatorship in Beijing, a very close ally — if not an outright puppet master — of the Kim regime enslaving the people of North Korea, when it managed to get its candidate elected to run the FAO by UN representatives. According to diplomatic sources, Beijing was able to secure enough votes for its candidate, Qu Dongyu, using a combination of bribery and threats. It was the fourth UN agency that fell under Communist Chinese control.

Before that, the UN FAO was run by Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, a close ally of disagraced Marxist leader Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, the former Brazilian president who was jailed for looting the public to help fellow communists and his bank account. Like Qu, Graziano also used FAO funds to help out his communist buddies around the world. In fact, in 2017, Graziano, infamous for persecuting journalists who exposed him, helped the communist regime of Evo Morales in Bolivia secure access to “climate funding” via the “Green Climate Fund.” That scheme was worth $250 million.

In North Korea, the UN FAO, ensuring “diverse perspectives” by ensuring “equal representation of men and women,” promised not to ignore the current UN sanctions that have been slapped on the regime. However, the UN agency vowed to seek “sanctions exemptions” to facilitate the infusion of cash and know-how. Other UN agencies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization have come under fire for violating UN sanctions by transferring sensitive, dual-use technologies to the regime. But here, the FAO vowed to stay in “compliance.”

Explaining why the FAO was chosen to lead the project on the UN side, documents reveal that the Communist Party-controlled UN agency has spent decades providing “development assistance” to the North Korean regime. Ironically, one of the areas where FAO has been helping Pyongyang is “food security.” But literally millions of North Koreans have died from famine and hunger-related diseases since the mid-1990s — almost unique in the modern world— as the regime and its leader feasted at the expense of that nation’s enslaved population.

Incredibly, the regime attributes declining agricultural productivity not to communism and the inherent failures of central planning. Instead, the regime’s functionaries claimed that “climate change” was to blame. In the real world, though, agricultural yields are increasing worldwide, which is to be expected. Obviously, with CO2 (plant food) concentrations rising and the planet getting slightly warmer, largely as a result of natural causes, crop yields should be growing, not contracting. But not in North Korea, apparently.

Establishment-minded analysts trying to put a positive spin on all this sounded almost too ludicrous to be believed. Columnist John Burton, formerly with the establishment Financial Times, claimed that “the problems North North Korea is experiencing due to climate change are also due to the fact that it sits next to much bigger producers of greenhouse gas emissions,” namely, Communist China.

But the only example of these problems cited was “yellow dust” — basically soil dust mixed with Chinese pollution, which was made worse not by CO2 emissions, but by communists in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan drying up the Aral Sea. Records of “yellow dust” go back thousands of years.

Almost incredibly, Burton goes on to celebrate the unimaginable poverty caused by communism in North Korea. “Paradoxically, North Korea’s economic backwardness is another advantage,” claimed Burton in the Korea Times column pushing for Trump to end some sanctions as part of a “Green New Deal” for North Korea. “It does not yet have an extensive fossil fuel-based infrastructure. That makes it easier to turn to renewables to power future growth if the planning is right.” Yes, the fact that North Koreans are literally starving and living in stone-age conditions is great because, if Kim plans right, he can use “renewables” if he ever decides to allow his miserable slaves to access a little electricity.

Members of the Green Climate Fund’s board of directors represent a variety of governments, including more than a few brutal dictatorships. Among the regimes represented are oil-rich Islamic theocracies such as the regimes ruling Iran and Saudi Arabia, along with more than a few socialist governments from Europe and Latin America. Analysts have described it as a “slush fund” to bribe Third World regimes into getting on board with the UN’s global agenda — more “global governance,” more power for the UN, global taxes, and global wealth redistribution. Obama illegally funneled billions of American dollars to the GCF, in flagrant violation of federal law.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the UN has funneled American money to Pyongyang, helping to prop up one of the most brutal and totalitarian regimes in all of human history. The UN Development Program (UNDP), for instance, helped build the Pyongyang Semiconductor Factory in the 1980s. According to both U.S. and South Korean government sources cited by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington, D.C., the regime uses that plant to produce electronic components for missiles, many of which are aimed at U.S. forces and American allies.

Under the guise of fighting “global warming,” the UN has been getting away with all sorts of criminal activities — extorting Western taxpayers, expanding its power, bullying industry, further infringements on liberty and free markets, brainwashing children with “climate education,” and so much more. Once again, allowing communists running UN agencies to transfer Western wealth to their mass-murdering allies can be added to the list. For the sake of Americans and Koreans, it is time for Congress and President Trump to step in and end these schemes now.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/34678-un-throws-cash-at-north-korea-to-fight-global-warming


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Alex Newman: School Children Terrorized About Death from “Climate Change” 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

MADRID — Inmates at government schools in Canada and beyond are being absolutely terrorized with “climate” alarmism, to the point that some of them were convinced that they will die in just 8 years unless the United Nations is given more power and money. Scientists have compared the tactics and hysteria to those used by cults and dictators.

The poor children were absolutely terrified. “We are gonna die! I don’t want to die!” screamed one little child during a propaganda session on “climate” forced on 2nd and 3rd graders at a public school in Toronto. A concerned parent who reached out to FreedomProject Media about the scandal, Lejla Blazevik, said her 8-year-old daughter told her the rest of the class had joined in, too.

Her own daughter, Joylaea Blazevic, got home from school after the indoctrination and recounted what happened at school that day: “She’s like: ‘Mommy, they said that we’re going to die in eight years.’” Even believers in the man-made global-warming hypothesis, including child psychologists, told media outlets reporting on the traumatic incident that it was “inappropriate.”

Among other things, the video featured Swedish girl Greta Thunberg scolding adults. The video included the now-infamous remarks: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” After that, a clock counting down 8 years was shown to the students, causing panic.

Ms. Blazevic vowed not to give up in this fight. “Again, my concern is for the 7- and 8-year-old children in this grade 2nd and 3rd class who may still believe that they’re going to die,” the mother told The Newman Report in an email before the story became an international scandal following an article in Canada’s National Post. “Also, the parents of these children need to be notified.”

School officials have issued contradictory responses to the scandal, ranging from denying and downplaying it, to apologizing and claiming it was for the children’s own good. On several occasions, according to emails obtained by The Newman Report, administrators claimed that it was just one student who yelled about dying. School officials also later claimed that the student in question had a habit of shouting that.

But not according to Ms. Blazevik, who wondered which of the contradictory statements by school officials were lies. “It was most of the children in the class who exclaimed ‘I don’t wanna die’ and not only one child,” she told The Newman Report. Indeed, the concerned mother spoke to a 7-year-old girl from her daughter’s class in front of that girl’s father, “and she said that she was happy that she’s going to die soon because that meant that she didn’t need to get married,” Blazevic recounted.

School officials also later claimed that students were “debriefed” and that the “nerves” of the children were “likely calmed” by re-assurances that they would not die from supposed man-made warming in 8 years. “My daughter is the best student in class, she attends school regularly and she is sure that the class was never corrected, not even on that day, during the presentation,” Blazevic said, expressing concerns that government-school employees were misleading parents and students.

School officials claimed the purpose of the propaganda video was actually to help the children to “resolve” the supposed problem of man-made climate doom. “Once again, we regret the impact the video and clock had on Joylea,” Prinipal Michael George told Blazevic in an e-mail obtained by FreedomProject Media. “Our intent is always to create critical thinkers & problem solvers with a perspective of contributing to the well-being of our global community.”

Meanwhile, in Germany, outraged citizens protested after the state-broadcaster showed video footage of young school children being taught to sing that their grandmothers are “pigs” for eating meat and driving gasoline-powered cars. “Every day my grandma fries herself a pork chop,” the seemingly happy children sing. “She does it because discount meat costs nearly nothing, my grandma is an old environmental pig!”

All over the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit in Madrid in December, meanwhile, brainwashed children ran around screaming about the alleged need to dismantle free markets, patriarchy, the economy, Western civilization, and more. They also demanded that the UN loot Western taxpayers, ban airplanes and “fossil fuels,” restrict meat consumption, and much more.

Leading scientists in Madrid, such as Princeton physicist and Trump advisor Dr. William Happer, warned that this was the behavior of a dangerous “cult.” “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end,” said Happer, who added that the UN and governments were “wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.”

Clearly, though, the children are being prepared for something big. Former Vice President and discredited “climate” guru Al Gore, for instance, was quoted in the UN’s propaganda book “Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21” calling for a “worldwide monitoring system staffed by children … designed to rescue the global environment.”

THE TAKEAWAY

The mass-murdering totalitarian regimes of the 20th century such as those of National Socialist (Nazi) Adolf Hitler and Chinese Communist butcher Mao Tse-Tung relied on remarkably similar tactics to those now being deployed against Western children. With a combination of fear-mongering, indoctrination, and propaganda, these savage regimes drove a wedge between parents and their children, turning the children against their families to facilitate the destruction of liberty.

The results were deadly and catastrophic. Indeed, those tyrants collectively slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and enslaved billions more. It is time for parents to step in and put a stop to it — now — before it gets too far out of hand.

TNR: https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1285-school-children-terrorized-about-death-from-climate-change


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Alex Newman: At UN Summit, America and Capitalism — Not CO2 — Are Enemy #1 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

MADRID — Throughout the United Nations COP25 “Climate” summit in Spain, America, the GOP, and President Donald Trump — not carbon dioxide or even “climate change” — were public enemy number one. Indeed, the U.S. government, the American people, their elected officials, and what remains of the free-market system that ushered in unprecedented global prosperity were all viciously and relentlessly attacked.

Globalists, communists, Islamists, socialists, environmentalists, and crackpots of all varieties dropped the mask in a carefully orchestrated show. Incredibly, even the many prominent Americans who spoke at the summit demonized their own nation and the freedom that made it so succesful. If the “climate” coalition gets its way, the consequences will be catastrophic for America, liberty, self-government, and material well-being.

Inside and outside the conference, activists funded by Big Oil, socialist governments, the Kremlin, the Rockefeller oil dynasty, and other shady sources shouted obscenities through bullhorns. “F*** Trump!” chanted a man with a bullhorn in front of about 100 “youth” and even more “journalists” from around the world. “F*** America!”

At a “Fridays for the Future” protest that began inside before heading into the street, shrieking children and “youth” screamed all sorts of Marxist talking points while putting their hands in the air — each one painted with an occult-style eye painted on it. The “young people,” terrorized and carefully managed by adults, chanted, among other things, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Occasionally, people would stand up and rant about the alleged evils of America, CO2, patriarchy, energy companies, markets, and more.

Once outside, the dozens of noisy children, made to look like an enormous march by the media, surrounded by well-spoken adults giving instructions and adoring “journalists” broadcasting the spectacle to the world, shouted “anti-capitalist, anti-capitalist” over and over again. Then they began chanting “system change, not climate change.” When asked about it, every protester said the goal was to dismantle what remains of the market system.

On the last day of the summit, “CommunismoEsVida” (Communism Is Life) was trending on Twitter in Spain as indoctrinated children on social media ranted against economic freedom.

Inside, similar rhetoric was everywhere. Infamous Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, called for an end to free market. “Capitalism is at the heart of what is driving” alleged man-made climate change, he declared at UN summit. “We’ve got to throw the system out.”

He probably felt right at home. Even the big cheese, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is an admitted socialist. Before taking the reins at the UN, he led the Socialist International, the world’s most powerful alliance of Socialist and Marxist political parties, many with the blood of countless innocents on their hands.

Among the significant demands was that the U.S. government hand over climate “reparations” under the guise of “loss and damage.” Hundreds of “youth” activists — many funded by the very governments and companies they were “protesting” against — demanded that America fork over the money. In short, poor and middle-class American taxpayers would end up paying Third World kleptocrats for supposedly causing bad weather, forest fires, and other natural disasters. Seriously. The UN now claims America cannot avoid paying up.

Adults speaking at the summit sounded similar. On one of the most prominent platforms in the entire UN summit, radical population-control advocate Stuart Scott with the group “Scientists Warning” blasted the United States as the “the kleptocratic States of America.” Speaking of President Trump, he went even further. “This man is a threat to the planet, as is his corporate owned Republican Party, who have been bought by the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries,” argued Scott.

The idea that American officials and the voters who elect them represent a mortal danger to the planet has been a common theme for weeks. Prominent professor of international relations Ole Wæver at the University of Copenhagen even suggested that the UN Security Council could decide that “climate change” is a “threat to international peace and security,” thereby sending in UN “peacekeeping” troops to enforce its climate mandates at the barrel of a gun.

Scott, who told The New American in an interview that reducing the population of the planet was urgent, continued to spew hatred against Trump while sitting on the UN stage. “They have together done a huge disservice to humanity and all of life on Earth,” he said about Trump and Republicans. “They’ve done all this for the sake of money. Make no mistake: Trump has got a particular personality aberration.”

“The callousness of this man is astonishing and revolting,” Scott continued, blasting Trump’s “amazing depravity.” Not a single pro-Trump or pro-GOP speaker was allowed on stage to offer an alternate perspective.

Sharing the stage with him was Dan Galpren, an attorney and legal advisor to leading climate alarmist James Hansen. “The derangement goes well further than Trump,” he told the UN summit, adding that the entire Republican Party was deranged, as well. Even though the American people who voted for those elected officials pay more for the UN than anybody on the planet, nobody challenged the narrative in an official capacity throughout the entire two-week summit.

For some reason, Scott then shared some teenage gossip he heard about Trump during his childhood. “I grew up a couple miles away from where Donald Trump grew up,” he said. “And the story in the hood — the neighborhood — was that he got kicked out of a couple schools locally, and so his parents put him in a military academy where they tolerated him as long as his parents paid. And his initials became the acronym for serving detention at the military academy.”

He also claimed that by getting the U.S. government out of the UN Paris agreement, Trump was “not trying to protect the American people, that’s very clear.” Using nasty foul language to demonize Trump, Scott said the president was a reality TV star, “you will recall, who could create his own reality on his programs.” “This man somehow cheated, lied, hoodwinked the public into becoming president of the United States,” Scott said, claiming the GOP had rigged the election through “a lot of gerrymandering the districts to help make that possible.”

Christians, of course, say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when considering actions. Scott, though, concluded his highly controversial remarks by asking, “What would Greta do?” It fit perfectly with the words by Trump’s former climate advisor, Dr. William Happer of Princeton, who spoke at a separate non-UN summit in Madrid and accused the man-made warming crowd of being a “bizarre cult” that would do enormous damage if not stopped.

Other major speakers at the UN summit called for massive depopulation of America and Europe in order to stop “climate change,” while others said reducing the number of Africans and Asians should be a top priority.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, an uber-wealthy former politician who also spoke from one of the most prominent stages at the UN summit, declared that he was ashamed to be American. “I assume the burden unfortunately of a country that is the largest naysayer of all,” he told throngs of officials, journalists, and activists from around the world. “And I’m sorry for that. I regret it enormously. Only the United States of America has a head of government who calls climate change a Chinese hoax.”

Kerry also took some time to lie, multiple times, about various issues ranging from diesel particulate to the supposed “science” underpinning the man-made-warming hypothesis. He claimed solar power, “now absolutely, under any standard by whatever you measure, is cheaper than coal, no question about it.” If that were true, everybody would be using solar power, of course.

Currently serving American officials who spoke at the summit were also extremists opposed to fundamental American values. Speaking on a panel called “Subnational strategies in North America for meeting Paris Commitments,” for instance, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes called on the world to “stymie capitalism.” All of the other U.S. and Canadian officials were similarly left-wing extremists.

Indeed, despite constant shrieking about “this is what democracy looks like,” there was literally no representation for conservative Americans or Republicans anywhere at the summit. Not a single conservative, pro-America speaker could be found among the 25,000 attendees. There was just a tiny handful of American patriots who reject the man-made global-warming hypothesis even allowed in the conference, and none of them were given a platform to speak.

Prestigious U.S. scientists who reject the man-made-warming narrative were also denied a platform to share their views or express their concerns. Instead, a coalition of “skeptic” and “realist” scientists and experts such as Princeton physicist Dr. Happer, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, had to gather elsewhere in Madrid to present their views. Out of thousands of journalists from around the world, just a tiny handful showed up at the Climate Reality Conference they hosted.

The United States, along with a handful of other nations with governments that did not bow down to the “climate-emergency” agenda, consistently faced demonization by powerful activists inside, too. The “Climate Action Network,” for example, repeatedly gave the U.S. government the “Fossil of the Day Award” for being the “best at being the worst.” Even Canadian government officials in the audience cheered it on.

In the spectacles, funded by the Kremlin and the Rockefeller oil dynasty, trophies were handed out to activists pretending to be Donald Trump, who would stand up and make America look evil, greedy, and ridiculous. There were many supposed reasons for America being the worst country in the world: Not handing over enough money, not slashing CO2 emissions quickly enough, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, sending delegates to represent U.S. interests despite being in the withdrawal process, and more.

Despite all the hatred, the U.S. delegation hardly rocked the boat in a serious way. “The United States continues to lead on clean, affordable, and secure energy while reducing all types of emissions ― including greenhouse gases ― over the last 15 years,” said U.S. Ambassador Marcia Bernicat, who headed the U.S. delegation. “Our model shows how innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.”

After saying this COP25 would be the last one where the U.S. government would be a party to the UN Paris Agreement, she vowed that Washington, D.C., would remain involved. “We remain fully committed to working with you, our global partners, to enhance resilience, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Ambassador Bernicat said during the three-minute time allotted to the U.S. government.

In conversations with The New American, U.S. State Department officials said the reason 50 American delegates were required was to “represent U.S. interests” while the federal government remained involved in the Paris Agreement officially until next year. Depending on who one talked to though, it was not clear whether the U.S. delegation was advancing or slowing down “progress” on the UN’s controversial “climate” agenda.

“The United States is proud of its record as a world leader in reducing emissions, driving economic growth, and fostering resilience at home and abroad,” a State Department spokesman told The New American. “The United States will continue to be a leader in assisting our partners to reduce emissions, protect natural resources, increase resilience, and respond to natural disasters.”

With U.S. officials perpetuating the narrative that CO2 is pollution, despite Trump having called the theory a “hoax” to benefit Communist China, all the rage might seem hard to understand. But at least one heavyweight on the side of climate realism suggested the hatred against America had to do with the U.S. government’s lack of cooperation.

“Why is the UN having a hard time advancing the global warming ball?” asked Craig Rucker, president of the free market-oriented environmental group known as CFACT. “One name — Donald J. Trump and his plans to pull America out of the Paris Climate Accord. It’s no fun making spending plans when you can’t leach off the world’s biggest economy.”

“What is actually happening at this year’s UN climate talks is a wait-and-see game geared toward next November’s American election,” he continued. “After watching Britain give the Tory party its biggest victory since Thatcher during the talks, and moves now afoot to pull Britain out of the E.U. once and for all, government by global bureaucracy is under threat. The UN is plenty scared.”

Of course, if CO2 were the real enemy, the UN summit would have been praising America non-stop, as the nation’s emissions of the essential gas continue to plummet. Instead of America being demonized, the “climate justice” warriors would have targeted Communist China, which is far and away the world’s largest emitter of CO2. And yet, not only was the murderous regime in Beijing not criticized; increasingly, it has been painted as the savior of multilateral “climate solutions.”

With the raw hatred against America and freedom that was on display throughout the COP25, it should be beyond clear to Congress that not one more American cent should be used to fund this absurdity known as the UN. Instead, though, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to keep America shackled to the UN’s “climate” regime at all costs. The American voter is now the only significant human force holding back planetary disaster in the form of a UN “climate” regime. The next election will be crucial.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34356-at-un-summit-america-capitalism-not-co2-are-enemy-1


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Alex Newman: UN Speakers Push Population Reduction for “Climate Emergency” 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.

The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.

What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.

A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.

The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.

“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.

Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.

When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.

In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”

A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.

Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.

Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”

But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”

Asked about whether the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency tasked with population control, was doing an adequate job, he responded: “I can’t comment on that because I’m not well enough informed.” According to congressional testimony, the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood have worked with Beijing on perpetrating forced abortions.

Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.

While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.

This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.

Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.

However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.

The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away. 

Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.

During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.

The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34329-un-speakers-push-population-reduction-for-climate-emergency


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

William F. Jasper: Exposed: Media Collusion for Greta Thunberg and UN Climate Hysteria 0 (0)

by William F. Jasper

The Fake News Media has been caught again with pants down. The Daily Callerbroke the story on November 18, revealing that more than 250 U.S. news outlets and journalists had colluded in an effort to promote the idea that the planet faces a “climate crisis,” and to build support for the United Nations Climate Action Summit of world leaders held in New York City, September 15-23. Not that there was any paucity of lurid global warming propaganda; anyone who hasn’t assumed room temperature knows that we have been marinated in “news” stories proclaiming climate apocalypse for decades now.

However, there are still too many skeptical Americans who haven’t bought the over-heated hype and are not quite ready to accept the draconian government controls and pay the trillions of dollars we are told will be necessary to save the planet from man-made global warming. So “the good and the great” of the Fourth Estate decided they need to kick it up a few notches and really saturate the American public with intense fright peddling to drive home the new meme that we are facing a truly dire “climate emergency.”

Thus was launched Covering Climate Now, a massive effort to shape and coordinate an advocacy campaign camouflaged as news.  According to the organization’s own website, “Covering Climate Now is a joint initiative of The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review.” The Nation prides itself in being the oldest socialist magazine in America, and Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), flagship publication of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, postures as a model of professionalism and journalistic ethics.

The Covering Climate Now website boasts: “Our initiative includes more than 350 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. We’re growing every day.”

“Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September,” the Daily Caller reported. “The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.”

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR stated in May. ”Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

“Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit,” notes the Daily Caller, “focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.”

That the tsunami of Thunberg stories was a completely orchestrated affair comes as no surprise to anyone who glimpsed even a fraction of the staged “news” events for the bratty, self-righteous teen, who delivered her venomous “How dare you!” speech to world leaders at the UN. Her apotheosis from pigtailed schoolgirl to beyond-rock-star, messiah status was obviously a contrived, concerted effort that went beyond the usual “Leftward Ho!” herd mentality of the “mainstream” media pack.

Among the media “partners” listed on the Covering Climate Now website are: BuzzFeed News, Bloomberg, Scientific American, Slate, Vanity Fair, Variety, VICE Media, Vox, The Weather Channel Digital, The Weather Channel, Al Jazeera, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, Huffington Post, The New Republic, Newsweek, and Harvard Business Review. In addition to these liberal-left/globalist organs, the climate propaganda cabal also includes such extreme-left Marxist outfits as Mother Jones, In These Times, Democracy Now!, The Intercept, and The Young Turks.

Collectively, the cabal succeeded wildly in drenching the planet with a suffocating blanket of global warming hype. As one example, take BuzzFeed. The Daily Caller reports: “BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.”

This not the first time the media mavens have been caught in flagrante delicto. Remember the JournoList scandal of 2008, the scheme by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein that recruited hundreds of reporters and news organizations to promote and defend then-candidate Barack Obama?

Then there was the Gamechanger Salon scandal, in which lesbian “community organizer,” CNN commentator and Obama/Clinton crony Sally Kohn was ringleader to more than 1,000 activists from Planned Parenthood, Big Media, Big Labor, and other “progressive” centers of power.

Then, last year there was the very open collusion scandal of more than 100 newspapers agreeing to simultaneously run anti-Trump editorials.

The media collusion exposed in the Covering Climate Now scandal is but the latest revelation proving that most of the “legacy media,” as well as much of the newer “alternative media” are indeed Fake News, as President Trump has charged.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34107-exposed-media-collusion-for-greta-thunberg-and-un-climate-hysteria


William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

 

Tom DeWeese: Every Step Makes a Difference- A Really Great Month! 0 (0)

Every Step Makes a Difference- A Really Great Month! – “If this election has proven anything to us, it’s that those who have had power will stop at nothing to keep it.”

by Tom DeWeese

I founded the American Policy Center (APC) thirty years ago, back in 1986.  I had goals to accomplish and dreams for success. Mostly I just wanted to make a difference in protecting our culture and our unique American form of government as a republic that protects the individual, the free market and the security of our homes.

Over the years, I’ve focused on issues including personal privacy, illegal immigration, public education, and of course the assault on our very way of life through the UN’s creation of Agenda 21. I know that APC has had an impact on these issues. But I never really knew just how to measure our reach or success. Have I been able to make the difference I had hoped for? Have I changed lives? Well, over the past few weeks I was finally able to get an idea of my reach and it came in several very surprising ways.

As the results came in that Donald Trump had won his surprise victory to the White House, I saw that, finally, we had a definite opportunity to make a real difference. Finally, we could change the national direction that has been barreling unchecked toward a federal dictatorship. It was equally crystal clear that, as with the Obama Administration, under a Hillary Clinton administration there would have been no hope of affecting presidential policy.

So, my first reaction to the Trump victory was to help get the right people into positions in the Administration where they could affect policy. I quickly sent out an APC Sledgehammer Action Alert asking supporters across the nation to write to the Trump team in support of two very able local officials. I nominated one to serve in the EPA and the other to serve as Secretary of HUD. I felt nothing was more important than to have these two agencies run by people who would stop the assault on private property and industry. In fact, I believe that if that was the only accomplishment of a Donald Trump presidency then that would be enough to assure a strong future for our nation.

To my surprise, after issuing the alert, I received many emails from supporters telling me they had sent in my name to be HUD Secretary. That was very unexpected. It’s a heady feeling to know people have such respect for you. Of course, Ben Carson is now up for the job. But this was only the beginning of what was to come.

Next, a very powerful political leader from South Carolina contacted me to say he had offered my name to the Trump team for a position in the Department of Interior. Wow, I thought, I had never even considered such a thing. Yet, wouldn’t it be great for them to appoint me as head of the BLM. I’d free the Bundys from jail. I’d begin a process to give lands back to the states and open even more areas that has been locked away from human use. Yes, that would be interesting. I then posted this news on Facebook and was overwhelmed by the number of comments I received by very excited people who certainly wanted to see me in such a position.

Just a few of days later I was to receive the biggest shock of all. Richard Viguerie—the long time Conservative leader and Washington, DC icon—posted an article in his daily online report “Conservative HQ,” listing what new HUD Secretary Carson would need to succeed in that post. As I read the article my head almost blew off. It proposed three people Carson should add to his team. My name was included on that very short, impressive list. Said the report: “Mr. DeWeese has been a fierce opponent of HUD’s overreach and perhaps more than anyone has been able to capture the emotional impact Americans feel when they are deprived of their property rights by AFFH and other HUD overreaches.” Mr. Viguerie’s HQ Report is read by approximately 100,000 people, many of them are major Conservative and political leaders from around the nation. To be recognized by such a powerhouse is certainly an honor.

My heady couple of weeks in the sun was about to get even better as I was invited to attend a special Climate Change briefing sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), to be held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building hearing room on Capital Hill. CEI heads up a group called the Cooler Heads Coalition, which is made up of groups and policy makers working to expose the global warming scam and fight policy to enforce it.

There were three speakers for the event, including Dr. Timothy Ball, a Canadian. He is an author of several books exposing the global warming hype. The featured speaker for the briefing was recently elected Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts. He has caused quite a stir in the Australian government as he has already established himself as an aggressive opponent to that country’s climate change policies.
I had never met or corresponded with either of these men. While I was talking to a few folks by the hearing room, a man walked up to me and in his Australian accent said, “You’re Tom DeWeese, aren’t you?” It was Senator Roberts. Somehow he recognized me and complimented my “outstanding work.”  He said he had been reading my materials for years.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

As the program opened, Dr. Ball began to speak, using his power point presentation. To my surprise he brought up a slide depicting the United Nation’s power structure clearly showing Agenda 21 as the center of the plans to enforce climate change policy and bring on global governance.

The reason that was such a surprise too me was the fact that, in the 20 years I have lead the fight against Agenda 21, I have been ignored and stonewalled by many leading conservative groups as they refused to even utter the words Agenda 21. Now, here in a Senate hearing room was a man they respected and had come to absorb his wisdom. And what was he saying? Exactly the message I had been trying to get them to hear all these years. After the program, I went up to thank Dr. Ball to talk about Agenda 21. I mentioned my struggle to reach some of these folks about Agenda 21. He said he understood. He said he didn’t believe the dire warnings about Agenda 21 at first either. Then he started to read my articles and that had led him to the truth. He said he knew my work well.

Next up was Senator Roberts to address the group. He was magnificent in his presentation. He hit all the right points on the global warming farce, backed by a genuine passion for the fight to stop it. But my biggest shock was about to be dropped on me. As he spoke, making his points, he suddenly said my name. In fact, not once, but three times! He told the crowd about how I was a leader in the fight, producing effective and important materials. To understand the significance of that fact, you must know the culture of Capital Hill. When someone of influence and respect, like Senator Roberts, starts pointing out your achievements, not once, but three times, it gets noticed! And it certainly was that day. Suddenly, after the program a lot of people wanted to say hello to me.

I tell these stories not to toot my horn, but to make a specific point. These two weeks of activity, being endorsed to serve in the new administration and recognized by strong leaders was vindication for the reach and impact that I and the American Policy Center have made. The excitement of so many supporters to accept that I might have an influence from inside the Trump Administration is a testament to APC’s never wavering battle to get the truth out. Senator Robert’s remarks simply confirmed to me that APC clearly has an international reach and is making a difference in world wide policy.  It certainly tells me that the fight thus far has been worth it. People are listening to APC and me. Now, with this new administration we really do have a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore our precious Republic and stamp out the growing tyranny that has threatened it.

There is another lesson in this for all the local activists who work so hard in their own communities; those who sometimes get discouraged because they don’t win the fight. Please learn this truth – what you do has an impact, no matter how insignificant you think your efforts may be. Writing a letter to the editor or speaking out in a meeting just might be the spark that moves someone else to take major steps forward, like a random article that moves a future Senator in Australia to lead the effort to change his nation’s policy.

I don’t know if I will get a position in this Administration. To tell you the truth, all I want is an open line into some of the agencies I have been fighting all these years, especially HUD. If I can become a resource of ideas to Secretary Carson I couldn’t ask for more. I shall pursue that opportunity to make it reality.

However, all of us on the front lines in the battle to preserve property rights and stop government tyranny must recognize one vital fact. A Trump presidency will not solve these problems for us. We must continue to be in the trenches fighting. If this election has proven anything to us, it’s that those who have had power will stop at nothing to keep it. If we now go home and think all is solved, nothing will change.

Those Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and planning groups operating in every community in the nation are not going to give up their power and influence – and the money that goes with it. We are going to have to fight trench warfare to boot them out and restore local control over government. We must fight in the grass roots to force the federal government to act against these runaway agencies. We must teach elected officials of the dangers and how to stand up against such policy. And we must organize local activists to back them up when they do take a courageous stand.

That is the mission of the American Policy Center in this new Era of Trump.

APC: http://americanpolicy.org/2016/12/20/every-step-taken-makes-a-difference-a-really-great-month/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Obama’s Communistic Amerika? 0 (0)

Obama’s Communistic Amerika?

by Bill Lockwood

Prosecution against non-believers in government doctrine. Announcing on March 29 at a press conference in the once-free state of New York in the formerly-free America a group of state attorney’s general promised full-scale “investigations” into any company that denies the official state doctrine that “climate change is real” and is “human-caused.” This belief-system or dogma of Climate Change has the imprimatur of Barack Obama. American businesses who do not accept the tenets thereof will be labeled as heretics and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman spoke in behalf of a group of 17 attorney’s general when he said that companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change and forthwith will be prosecuted. The 17 AG’s, like so many Jesuits of 16th century Spain, have coalesced into a society labeled “AG’s United for Clean Power”—a part of Obama’s enforcement arm. Members include AG’s from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State. Included in the list is the AG from the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
Harassment investigations against suspected heretic companies have already been launched by Schneiderman himself as well as Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California. ExxonMobil heads their list. According to The Daily Signal allegations against the suspected oil company include “funding research that questioned climate change.” Exxon has defensively rocked back on its heels denouncing the accusations. Little matter. This is how communism works. Shut down any possible dissenting voice with heavy-handed government threats. One may not question official doctrine. Few patriots will let their voices squeak out against this Obama-driven onslaught.

Obama’s Fingerprints

Recall that our dictator-in-chief already has issued Climate Change proclamations, signaling to the Sustainability Socialists that he was ready to prosecute doctrine-deniers. His ex cathedra dictates followed recent encouragements from one of his colleges of cardinals. In a letter composed by a team of 20 professors Obama was urged to begin prosecuting heretics under the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A heretic is one who does not believe the “debate is over” and denies that “climate change is real and human-caused.”

In that letter the professors stroke Obama. “We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.” [The people’s representatives are not buying Washingtonian Doctrine]. “One additional tool,” they go on to suggest, “is a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The only disseminator of knowledge must be government sponsored.

The United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch has indicated that the entire Justice Department has already been transformed into Obama’s heresy-hunters in which civil legal actions against climate change deniers are being sharpened. This, of course, explains why Hillary Clinton has not yet been indicted. Real and actual violation of law is not of interest to Obama’s Justice Department. Violation of law is secondary to transgressing the tenets of the King.

To alter the figure, Obama’s Amerika is rapidly taking on characteristics of the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Atheism was the “official dogma” of the Soviet Union and anti-religious propaganda was meant to demonize believers while fostering public hostility against Christians. Brainwashing was the recognized technique to soften peoples’ belief-systems and government force used to weaken resolve.

Various “public organizations” sprang up to assist the government indoctrinators. Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, the League of the Militant Godless, and others began linking denial of State Doctrine to psychological disorders which created more hostility against Christian people. Textbooks were composed to evoke contempt for Christianity as well as America. Learning was state-sponsored where real history could easily be “revised” to bring into into communistic line.

Sustainability

The official state dogma in America, conceived in the United Nations, is called “Sustainability.” It is defined as the ideological concept which seeks to curtail economic, political and intellectual liberty through government force resulting in the rationing of resources, goods and finances. Global Catastrophe (Climate Change) is the lever which supposedly makes this oversight necessary. According to the National Association of Scholars “sustainability” has become a discipline of its own in the University. There have been 1,438 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focusing on or relating to sustainability studies. For example, Middlebury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings.

Over five-hundred universities in the United States report to the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) where they are graded by a rating system. Points for each institution can be earned for such things as “growing organic gardens, subsidizing child care for employees, and offering gender-neutral housing.” Very little science is actually required for these studies. Changing behavior is the goal, not learning truth. That behavior is now moving from the suggestion stage to mandated stage as students are goose-stepping out of the universities chanting the tenets of Sustainability.

With less than a year remaining in office, Obama is “fundamentally transforming” a once-free republic, or what remains of it, into a totalitarian nation. Totalitarian– by definition –means even re-orienting the belief-systems of the people as well as their behaviors. Pressures from below at the educational- level is now beginning to squeeze citizens against the pressure from above—the Justice Department and the “AG’s United for Clean Power.”

Back To Homepage

Embracing the Black Widow 0 (0)

Embracing the Black Widow

by Bill Lockwood

Physicist John Droz warns against blindly accepting pronouncements by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He likens this to being “duped into embracing [a] Black Widow.” Referring to the fact that “science” is being distorted to support socialistic-style goals of government control worldwide, Droz addressed lawmakers in 2013 that the American populace is being “brainwashed to accept a new secular religion with its own value system.”

John Droz completed undergraduate degrees in Physics and Mathematics from Boston College and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University. As a senior fellow at American Tradition Institute, Droz has earned the thanks of conservatives for his broadcasts of skepticism pertaining to Climate Change. At the same time, anyone who glances over his online detailed power-point presentation Science under Assault will readily understand how he has drawn the ire of many in the scientific community who have been co-opted by policy makers into becoming “advocates” of liberal positions.

A more recent publication by The Heartland Institute called Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus demonstrates the accuracy of Droz’s skepticism. This Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), edited by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, thoroughly documents the flawed methodology utilized by Climate Change scientists. It also puts the lie to President Obama’s “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

The purpose of this Oval Office non-sense is to drive America into world socialism managed by the United Nations. Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, a senior advisor to the United Nations, and a world-renowned advocate for Sustainable Development, says as much in his recent book The Age of Sustainable Development. Preaching the transfer of wealth from America to poorer nations including health coverage for all “world citizens” by American taxpayers, Sachs wants western nations to “curb human activities” that cause greenhouse gas and he is ready to empower a world government to ensure this is done.

The strongest factor in coming to the Sustainable Development position is not the scientific method, but political ideology.  This can be easily seen in what Droz calls “Using consensus to Imply Correctness.”

Consensus Science

Among Droz’s common-sense critiques of the “post-modern” scientific advocates is that “consensus” among scientists does not equal scientific fact. “It is a trick to get around real science.” Randy Guliuzza agrees. In an article entitled Consensus Science: The Rise of Scientific Elite Guliuzza warns, “Rarely are appeals to scientific consensus used in areas where experimental evidence is strong, but they are often favored on subjects where science is weak to non-existent (such as the reality of extra-terrestrials or parallel universes), and, especially, on divisive social issues that need scientific input.”

Why Scientists Disagree pointedly criticizes Obama’s 97% claim. “A 97% consensus claim is merely a ‘social proof’—a powerful psychological motivator intended to make the public comply with the herd; to not be the ‘odd man out’” (p. 19).

The late Michael Crichton, physician, producer and writer, also had much to say regarding “Consensus Science.” In a 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA he observed that scientific reviewers often use the phraseology of having a “consensus” in the field as justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to a void debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, for you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

The late Dr. James D. Bales, writing of the Creation-Evolution controversy, made the same point. If  to be accepted by scientists “is all that is meant to establish something scientifically, then the only scientific method would be to count heads. If more scientists accept a position than reject it, the minority has been outvoted and the scientific truth is whatever the majority says that it is.”

But this in turn means that “all the talk about framing a hypothesis, the testing of the hypothesis by the scientific method, the retesting of the hypothesis by another, and the significance of prediction is just so much ritualistic talk and is unrelated to science. If enough scientists can be persuaded, regardless of what means of persuasion, that a certain position is true, the position has been confirmed scientifically.”

That last line of Bales strikes home in the Climate Change debate. Government funding from 2010 to 2013 is a whopping $64 Billion dollars paid for “scientific research” to prove Climate Change and man’s culpability. Little wonder liberals press that the “science is settled!”

Reaction to Droz

Following Droz’s presentation in which he warned of corruptions of the scientific method by Climate Change alarmists, Derb Carter of the Southern Environmental Law Center retorted, “Mr. Droz’s perspectives are not only outside the mainstream but on the very fringe.” So much for science in her remarks. We are back to counting heads.

Scientist Sam Pearsall, recently retired from the Environmental Defense Fund with a doctorate in “ecology,” observed of Droz that “he made absolutely no case that climate change is not happening, nor that it is not urgent, nor than it is not cause by human combustion of fossil fuels. There was no science in his talk.”

Perfect illustrations are these of those who have already been bitten by the Black Widow. Shifting the burden of proof to Droz to “make a case” that climate change is “not happening” is not only illogical, but is precisely one of the errors about which Droz warned. His presentation, Science Under Assault, was a critique and a common-sense caution about distorting the scientific method to fit political agendas. What “scientific method” is needed for that?

Those who advocate human-caused Climate Change have the burden of proof to establish scientifically that it is so. Yet, when Droz shows clearly that they have not done so but are instead “counting noses,” Pearsall wants him to “make a case that Climate Change is not happening” and Derb Carter quips that Droz is “outside the mainstream!” Apparently, Droz is right on target.

Back to Homepage

 

« Older Entries