Category Archives: Global Warming

Alex Newman: Is Kremlin Using School Children as Dupes in “Climate” Protests? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Across Europe and beyond, indoctrinated school children have been marching out of their classrooms and on to the streets to protest against “climate change.” But rather than just being the spontaneous actions of brainwashed victims of government schools, a number of high-profile voices have suggested that there is something more at work here: the Kremlin.

The most high-profile child being exploited by adults with an agenda is Greta Thunberg. As The Newman Report reported from the UN “climate” conference in Poland, the autistic Swedish girl’s face has been plastered across newspapers and TV screens worldwide by the establishment media. She began skipping school to protest “climate change.” And that promptly got her an audience with presidents, United Nations leaders, European Union bosses, and so on.

But now, there is good reason to believe that there is something even more sinister behind the exploitation of these whiny children by Western adults with sinister agendas. Consider the recent comments made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Munich Security Conference. Speaking of Russian hybrid warfare and disinformation aimed at manipulating public opinion and destabilizing governments, Merkel suddenly mentioned the children protesting for the “climate.”

“In Germany now, children are protesting for climate protection – that is a really important issue,” said Merkel, a “former” communist who openly admits that her half-baked “climate” policies are making her nation more dependent on Russian energy. “But you can’t imagine that all German children, after years, and without any outside influence, suddenly hit on the idea that they have to take part in this process.” A spokesperson later tried to walk her comments back, but it was a bombshell.

Last month, Belgian “Climate” Minister Joke Schauvliege made very similar remarks about the brainwashed young “climate” activists. “I know who is behind this movement, both of the Sunday demonstrations and the truants,” she said in a speech. “I have also been told that from state security. I can guarantee that I do not see ghosts alone and that climate demonstrations are more than spontaneous actions of solidarity with our climate.” She was eventually forced out for saying that, but again, it was huge.

Obviously, plenty of these poor children really believe the lies they are being fed in their government schools. For instance, all over the Western world, captive children are being taught that the gas they exhale, carbon dioxide (aka the gas of life), is “pollution” that must be taxed and regulated by the UN to save humanity. It seems they never learn that human emissions of CO2 make up a fraction of 1 percent of all the “greenhouse” gases present naturally in the atmosphere.

But the idea that Russian authorities would be manipulating and weaponizing gullible, indoctrinated young people to march against their own freedom and energy security is hardly far-fetched. In fact, just last year, a congressional report exposed the Kremlin’s bankrolling of U.S. “environmental” groups dedicated to destroying the American energy industry. Russia, of course, is heavily dependent on its energy exports. And now that America is the largest energy producer in the world, the Kremlin is turning to dirty tricks.

The Takeaway

If Western children were being properly educated at school, there is no way the Russian government could convince them to go out and demand their own enslavement — much less get them to protest against the essential-to-life gas they exhale. But unfortunately, they are not being properly educated. Instead, they are being deliberately dumbed down and indoctrinated on an industrial scale.

Parents must step in to protect their children immediately, or their own offspring will end up being weaponized against faith, family, freedom and America. Whether the Russians or homegrown totalitarians do it matters little. What matters is that the future is literally at stake.

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.

 

Tom DeWeese: The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty– “The people who just want to improve their lives and have simple things like running water and heated homes…”

by Tom DeWeese

This article was first published in The DeWeese Report in January of 2013. Nothing has changed since then except taxes are higher, government is more powerful and there are more poor in the world as the attack on free market capitalism increases. Corporations that play the Sustainability game are not free enterprise. They are its enemy. The assault continues.  -Tom DeWeese

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer (Environmental Defense Fund)

The reminders are put in front of us everyday. Poverty in the world. How horrible. Starving children. Unimaginable hardships. Hopelessness. SOMEONE MUST DO SOMETHING!

Of course, the answer for the world leadership is to throw money at the problem, either through volunteer charity programs or mandatory taxation. The problem is, after subjecting us all to this redistribution of wealth in order to sentence the poor to a lifetime of breadlines, the only thing that changes is that we have more and more poor.

What other way is there? How do we eliminate these horrible conditions and create jobs in these very poor countries? Well, in a recent article I argued that “Private Property Ownership is the Only Way to Eradicate Poverty.” It is. But there must also be a workable infrastructure of electricity, clean water, commerce and transportation in place as well. One must have these things to provide jobs, health, and an upgraded standard of living for the means to purchase private property, after all.

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

So, it seems that a good place to start the process of eradicating world poverty and ending the bread lines would be for international companies to begin to invest in such an infrastructure. Building power plants and water treatment plants would lead to the development of housing, schools, shopping malls. Better roads would spring up as people would need to get to the newly created jobs. Farmers would need to employ new ways to increase their output to feed new mouths as people from other regions would arrive seeking the much needed jobs.

Prosperity and hope would overtake poverty and hopelessness. It’s the very system that helped to make the United States the richest nation on earth with the highest standard of living. Finally, instead of depending on us for their daily ration of bread, these people would be able to help, not only themselves, but others in need as well. The entire world could begin to move toward a global prosperity, which our leaders say is their goal.

There’s only one problem. Poverty is unacceptable only as long as it doesn’t hurt the environment! What? Say that again? Yes, you heard me. If such action to end poverty and improve people’s lives is somehow a threat to the world-wide plan for Sustainable Development, then such development is not to be considered. Read More

Read Tom Deweese’s Bio

Back to Homepage

The Failure of the Green State Religion 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Failure of the Green State Religion

by Bill Lockwood

America does indeed have an official state church. It is the Green Environmental Sect which preaches the Gospel of Sustainability. Effectively, for all practical purposes, it has become the endorsed “religion” of the state and has supplanted Christian precepts in the minds of our indoctrinated youth. The ideals of the Sustainability Movement with a socialist-style utopia has displaced academic freedom and transformed students into firebrands for Global Governance.

It might be well here to remind ourselves that our nation repudiated the concept of a state-sponsored religion. The idea that tax monies would be confiscated to support a particular doctrine whether or not the citizens believed that doctrine was to fall into the same European trap from which the founders of this nation fled. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, if Christianity be true, allow it to compete in the free-marketplace of ideas. “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,” he advised Peter Carr. Christian welcome this test.

Free-Marketplace of Ideas

It is precisely this test, the “free-marketplace of ideas,” where the Environmental Movement of the Green Gospel fails most miserably. Led by the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and the Academy of Professorships from Maine to California to the U.N., sustainability activists work through government force to impose their own version of a carbon-free economy.

What exactly is “Sustainability?” It is not simply care for the “environment,” though it includes that. The word “marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which it is claimed curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations” (Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism; An Executive Summary of a Report by the National Association of Scholars, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the original analysts of “global development,” served for twelve years as director of Earth Institute at Columbia University and has spent thirteen years advising the United Nations secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals, recently wrote a textbook calling for “global justice” entitled The Age of Sustainable Development. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon writes the forward. Sachs explains very clearly what is involved in Sustainability.

It is “governance” (read, “government”) that will “motivate” (p. 486) member-states to “End extreme poverty, including hunger” by “giving support for developing countries.” “Giving,” according to socialists, really means “forcibly extracting monies from citizens” to apply to projects in which they believe. This is how the Democratic Party has used the word “investment.” A cloaked concept meaning forced taxation. When you are forcibly taxed for their projects you are “investing!”

Involved in Sachs’ plan is the goal to “achieve gender equality…and human rights for all.” ObamaCare and Nationalized Health Care are small measures. He calls for “Universal health coverage” (p. 487) and implementation of global policies to “help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.”

But all of that does not really spell out in one bottom line the question, “What is Sustainability?” Sachs unveils much of it with this: “Curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy” (p. 488). To accomplish this he finalizes plans to “transform governance for sustainable development” (p. 489). In other words, Sustainability means forcibly rationing resources and controlling human activity. And Sachs tells us what this requires: “GOOD GOVERNANCE” (p. 502). A clarion call for World Government.

Another founding father’s words come to mind here: George Washington. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.” World mastery over all human activity is what the global environmental movement is about.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987 a United Nations report was issued entitled Our Common Future. It is better known as the Brundtland Report. “It united environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for ‘social justice’” (NAS Report). The Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This means, of course, that a “global governing body” must “watch over” the amount of energy and resources that we use and forcibly limit those nations (America) that seem to splurge by utilizing too many natural resources. Freedom causes “splurging,” therefore the “splurgers” must be “mastered.” Those societies must be transformed from the top down. “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

That transformation has been underway for a long period. There are over 1,400 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. The number of institutions which are “signatories” of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, obliging them to eliminate or offset 100% of all greenhouse gases emissions and to integrate sustainability into the curriculum is 697.

Middelbury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings. Cornell University offers 290 sustainability courses, 13% of all course offerings. More than 400 student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns are active on campuses across the United States. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Religion

At root level, Sustainability is the primary doctrine of a failed Green Environmental Religion. It includes the preaching of virtue: “Thrift and forethought.” “Sin” is the selfish usage of resources. America is the chief sinner. “Places like the United States are causing far more damage and risk than other parts of the world” (Sachs, 394). “The United States, … needs to learn to live sustainably” (p. 485).

Not only is Environmentalism a religion, but it is a weak and failed religion that can only rely on government force to “sustain” itself. Its “sustainability doctrine” cannot depend upon mere persuasion and preaching in an open market-place of ideas but, like the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, depends upon government-enforced edicts.  Academic freedom is lost. “[On] matters such as global warming, the campus version of sustainability replaces debate with doctrinaire declaration and enforces the party line” (NAS Report, 3). No open discussion. No debate. No reasoning. No examining upon what evidence the pretensions of the ideas are founded. Only government edicts that “the debate is closed.” Collegiate indoctrination is all about the transfer of governing power: Global Governance.

Back to Homepage