Friday, June 23, 2017

A Progressive Migration to Conservative States

Liberals from California and smaller blue states are exerting their influence on the electoral process in red states, determined to flip them to blue, and, by and large, are succeeding with the exception of the most recent election in Georgia’s 6th district where Democrats spent over $23 million, the most in the history of the House of Representative elections ever.

I’m still scratching my head trying to understand the insanity of 144,000 low information Americans from Georgia who voted for the Democrat candidate Jon Ossoff, a French President Macron look-alike, even though he did not reside in their district and did not have much of a platform.

No amount of cash, air time, dishonest claims, speeches, and other shenanigans Hollywood and progressives around the country engaged in, convinced the rest of the well-informed Georgia voters to elect Jon Ossoff.

Someone comically wrote that “Snowflakes are crying their Ossoff in their parents’ basements’” after the results of the election determined that Ossoff lost.

Trying to cajole young voters who had just graduated from high school, frustrated that conservative parents interfered with their attempts to reach potential 18-year old voters living in their parents’ basements, voters who have no idea who runs the political world and our lives into the ground, Democrats complained to the compliant press that parents were mean and unresponsive to their frequent calls and attempts to brainwash their offspring to vote for the Democrat candidate.

The socialist Democrat platform was well articulated by candidates like Bernie Sanders. Vote for collectivism and social justice, he told his young and naïve followers; when I lose, I can buy an expensive sports car and a second home in Vermont while you dopes are driving tin cans or old cars with the “Feel the burn” and “Coexist” bumper stickers on and lay your head on your parents couch in the basement after a hard day’s work as baristas at Starbucks.

Democrats from progressive states have deep pockets which they spend on Millennials and other misinformed and brainwashed young people who, for $15 and hour, a “living wage,” will go anywhere dressed in black, with face masks, like the cowardly anarchists and fascists that they are, and will destroy someone else’s property in the name of “social justice” and “equality.” The not-so-feminine and self-described nasty women dress in vagina costumes like vile idiots. They attack people who disagree with their insanity and demonize our duly-elected President with vitriolic hate.

Progressives have been moving to conservative states in droves, changing the face of the electorate and flipping parts of a red state into blue, eventually succeeding in flipping the entire state to the progressive agenda by dominating in a few very populous cities. Thus, a state like Virginia, because of its heavy concentration of communists and other fellow travelers in the northern part, it has elected a fellow progressive governor, senators, and other representatives despite the fact that the rest of the state is very much conservative.

Former Rep. Allen West, who was redistricted out of his seat by his own Republican party who did not like his America-first stance on many issues, compared this exodus of progressives and invasion of conservative states to the Muslim Hijra which is also taking place all over the world as we speak, including the United States. By far they are succeeding in colonizing western civilization beyond their wildest dreams, both in Europe and here at home.

If you add into the mix the illegal vote of so many aliens who have crossed our border unlawfully or were brought here by the Obama administration, one can see how elections are swayed in the direction of the Socialist Democrat Party which now runs or heavily influences all the blue states, our government, the military, the fake main stream media, all the technology monopolies, social media outlets, publishing houses, academia, schools, Christian churches, the legal system, and the Deep State.

What conservatives are left with is the alternative media and talk radio with voices like Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and TV personalities like Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity. Nobody is sure how long that will last. Liberals, the intolerant bunch that they are, operate on the following predilection - you have a right to say what you want, as long as you agree with me.

We were lucky that Georgia conservatism won this battle. Will we be lucky next time and win the war? Most Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security, have food on the table, air conditioning, heat, water, in-door plumbing, multiple sports channels, a home sweet home and, as long as nobody bothers their daily routines, they don’t care who is in charge of their global enslavement. So they vote in more of the same corrupt politicians for both parties.

Many go to church and bend over backwards to appease the few atheists and their fellow travelers who demand “separation of church and state” in schools but say nothing when special accommodations are made for Muslim children and their prayer needs.

American Christian children are being indoctrinated into Islam by the Common Core curriculum in public and private schools, and are forced to go to the bathroom with a pedophile/mentally deranged person who pretends or “feels” that he is a she.

What else can possibly go wrong with our great country, the former “shining city on the hill,” that is being tarnished day by day by influential anti-American groups with huge coffers?

Monday, June 19, 2017

Why Are Billionaires, Media, Academia, Environmental Movement Promoting the Enslavement of their Citizens Who Must Decarbonize?

"One must give the Soviets their due. No other country is capable as are the Soviets of manipulating public opinion in the West." – Natalie Grant Wraga

Few intelligent people understood the global environmental communist agenda twenty years ago but Natalie Grant Wraga did. The majority did not pay careful attention and the MSM presented the environmental agenda of Cultural Marxism in a very positive light that seemed logical.

Most people understood the chemical and trash pollution of air, water, and soil. We could see it around us. Nobody wanted to live in a dirty world, polluted beyond safe and healthy habitation. Who can possibly object to the protection of endangered species that have been overhunted for food, selfish predatory trophies, or tribal customs?

But that is not what the environmental Cultural Marxists referred to – they wanted to decarbonize our civilized life, turn us back to a more primitive living in order to better control every facet of our lives, and to reduce the much maligned CO2, the gas of plant life, to levels progressives determined were safe for human and animal habitation.

In an article published in June 16, 2008, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare,” Wes Vernon quoted Natalie Grant Wraga: “Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.”

Wes Vernon mentioned in his article that Natalie Grant Wraga died in 2002 at the age of 101 and “was an internationally-recognized expert on the art of disinformation.” In her obituary in the Washington Post, “Herbert Romerstein, veteran intelligence expert in the legislative and executive branches of government, described Grant/Wraga as ‘one of our leading authorities’ on Soviet deceit.”

He further said that John Berlau of Investors Business Daily “wrote that some of the most respected scholars on Soviet Intelligence have credited this woman with teaching them how to penetrate desinformatzia, Moscow’s term for its ongoing operation to deceive foreign governments.”

Natalie Grant Wraga published her article, “Green Cross: Gorbachev and Global Enviro-Communism,” in the spring of 1998 at the age of 97. Very involved, alert, and out-spoken, Grant became legally blind in her late 80s and was helped in her writing pursuits by her devoted reader/researcher who prefers to remain anonymous. She learned a lot in the process of helping Natalie and considered her an early voice of the movement that would later emerge as The Tea Party.

The Soviets, who at the time were promoting their influence via the ‘peace’ movement, had decided to replace the issue of ‘world peace’ with the task of protecting the world’s environment. “Although ‘peace’ still remains a prominent item on the list of deceitful operations of Soviet leaders,” said Natalie Grant in 1998, “protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for.”

At the time, there were two groups, Natalie said, who represented environmentalism on the world stage – the Earth Council, an NGO chaired by Maurice Strong, then a U.N. top-tier bureaucrat, and the Green Cross International (GCI), a non-governmental organization (NGO) linked to Moscow and chaired by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, its founder.

According to Natalie Grant Wraga, GCI could trace its roots to the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders of Human Survival, in short the Global Forum.  Global Forum was supposed to join the Earth Aid Society through dialogues with its founder, C. Nobel.  The group first met in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York in June 1985.

The meeting deliberated environmental degradation and depletion of earth’s resources. According to Grant, two people in the meeting were Angier Biddle Duke, former chief of protocol in the Kennedy and Johnson administration, and Congressman James H. Scheuer of New York. The Congressman visited Moscow and Soviet officials attended a subsequent 1987 conference in Oxford, England. Strangely, she said, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mother Teresa were also in attendance at this conference.

The next big conference of the Global Forum was held in Moscow in 1990 and was co-sponsored by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. With the Academy of Science supporting its content, speakers included U.N. Secretary General and then Senator Al Gore who spoke as a member of the Global Forum Council. He wrote an article in Shared Vision, the Global Forum publication. The keynote speaker was Mikhail S. Gorbachev, then President of the USSR.

The summary of his speech appeared in Shared Vision No. 7 on p. 11 along with the following recommendations: demand a nuclear test ban, establish an international monitoring of the environment, sign a “covenant” to protect “unique ecological zones,” pledge support of U.N.’s environmental programs, and of the June 1992 international conference on the environment in Rio, Brazil.

Natalie Grant Wraga believed that Gorbachev, as President of the USSR, was speaking and promoting the views of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. These “communist recommendations” were taken to heart by the Global Forum which became a “communist front and started acting upon Gorbachev’s suggestions.”

Grant/Wraga thought that naïve non-communist environmentalists were duped into joining the communist effort to turn the communists’ recommendations into a battle to protect the Earth. Several events pushed the agenda further:

1.    Stockholm Conference in 1972 (Secretary General was the Canadian millionaire Maurice Strong) – he managed to force his environmentalist agenda onto the world

2.    U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 asked for a code to impose behavioral norms for individuals and states in regards to Earth

3.    The First Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 influenced 178 countries to sign the 40-chapter U.N. document called U.N. Agenda 21; politicians embraced it at first, then started calling everyone that criticized it as conspiracy theorists, then brazenly adopted it one county and town at a time with grants from the federal government disbursed through a foreign entity operating at local levels, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

4.    Formal launching of the Green Cross International in 1993, Kyoto, Japan when Gorbachev accepted the nomination as founder and chairman

5.    U.N. Agenda 21 of 1992, the blue print of Sustainable Development, now part of every government plan around the world, was further promoted and augmented during meetings in Copenhagen, Cairo, and Beijing. Social justice, a blatant communist doctrine, appears prominently in this document and is now heavily promoted by academia and the main stream media who are indoctrinating the American public non-stop.

6.    Rio+5 met in March 1997 to assess the progress of Sustainable Development five years after 1992 Rio conference

7.    The U.N. Second Earth Summit in New York, attended by President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore stressed “aid to developing countries” and reducing emissions of “greenhouse gases,” a pact designed, in Grant’s opinion, “to cripple what’s left of American industry.”

The Earth Charter, which had been chaired by Maurice Strong until his death, had collaborated with Green Cross International, chaired by Gorbachev, and launched an Earth Charter in 1994 in Hague. In order to maintain life on earth, countries and their citizens had to engage in “norms of ethical and moral behavior” in all sectors of society as prescribed by these communists. The idea of “consensus” was developed, the bogus scientific “consensus” that progressives are browbeating real scientists with, and ridiculing and marginalizing those who deny that anthropogenic global warming exists.

Green Cross International (GCI) promoted Gorbachev’s communist values while he called for a “new civilization.” What this new civilization entailed was not explained but it was certainly not democracy, nor prayers, since Gorbachev had said that neither can solve the manufactured and bogus “world crisis.” He constantly discussed “change of values” but did not specify what values needed changing, why, and how. But he did say that the planet had rights and “the rights of the Earth” had to be guaranteed.

Natalie Grant Wraga wrote, “GCI suggests greater focusing on ‘soft law.’ Soft law refers to non-binding documents drawn up by special interest groups, such as GCI or the Earth Charter Council, that establish ‘norms,’ hoping they will take on the force of ‘law’ through customary practice. Majority rule and dissent are thereby circumvented.” Grant/Wraga was right, as most of U.N. Agenda 21, although not ratified by the U.S. Senate, has been implemented at all local levels through ICLEI’s visioning committees of Green Growth/Smart Growth initiatives of Sustainable Development.

The U.S. Chapter of Green Cross International, named Global Green USA, was opened in 1994 by Gorbachev during his visit. Its slogan was “one world, one people,” which brings into focus why every school and college in our nation now promotes global citizenship, anti-Americanism, social justice, and total divorce from one’s history, traditions, sovereignty, borders, language, and citizenship.

Grant/Wraga wrote, “Barely one year after its establishment, Green Cross and Crescent International had already formed five national chapters with two headquarters in Hague and Geneva.” She pointed out that none of these organizations had helped any flood or earthquake victims, oil spills’ mitigation, other environmental disasters, and have been silent on dam projects. They have been “long on rhetoric but short on action.”

When Grant/Wraga wrote her article on the Enviro-Communism in 1998, she astutely pointed out that the green movement, green on the outside and red on the inside, was a “Soviet disinformation operation” in which “Facts are exaggerated into a ‘nightmarish’ picture of floods, scorched earth, disease and death. The target was the industrialized West,” scared into submission by “Moscow’s sympathizers in science, academe, and the slavishly obedient Establishment media.”

The 97-year old Natalie Grant Wraga, referring to Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, asked a very profound and telling question, “Who profits from the activities of these two men?”

Who profits today from the global warming/climate change industry, worth trillions of dollars? Why are billionaires, the media, the academia, and the environmental movement promoting the enslavement of their citizens who must decarbonize? If they are so worried about the environment, why are they not giving up their fossil-fuel driven wealthy lifestyles and huge fortunes to the poor of the entire world and become poor like the rest of them?

 

Friday, June 16, 2017

Progressive Equal Pay and Capuchin Monkeys

“Most people are pretty happy with what they’ve got until they see what the other guy has got.” – Alfred E. Neumann, Mad Magazine

Photo: Wikipedia
An article about “equal pay,” which appeared on my screen recently, caught my eye. The article was entitled, “What Happens When Two Monkeys are Paid Unequally for the Same Work?” The embedded video was clipped from a TED talk by Frans de Waal, primatologist, ethologist, and professor of primate behavior at Emory University, who talked about the “fairness study” as it involved the pillars of morality, reciprocity and empathy. His study was done with Capuchin monkeys who appeared to “reject unequal pay.” http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=3

The outcome of the monkey video embedded bears no resemblance to the economics of remuneration but, to the untrained mind, it seems to validate the snowflakes’ mantra that we should all receive equal pay because it is our human right. These days, in the progressive philosophy, all welfare and the results of human activity are a human right bestowed upon us by the generous and omnipotent government that receives its money and generosity from thin air and money trees.

If two Capuchin monkeys were given cucumbers, they were perfectly happy. If one monkey was given grapes, the results were different. Using new monkeys who have not done the task before, the results were comical. 

The two monkeys paid the human with a rock first and then received the treat, either cucumber or grapes. The monkey on the left got cucumbers and the monkey on the right received grapes. The first piece of cucumber was fine, the monkey ate it, however, after she saw the monkey on the right receiving grapes, a better tasting treat, the first monkey rejected the next slice of cucumber and threw it in apparent displeasure back to the human running the experiment. Each time the monkey received cucumber, she was agitated, banged and rattled the glass enclosure and threw the cucumber back. As the presenter said, this is the “Wall Street” protest on display, the audience erupted in laughter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoK48QGL8

This may seem like a convenient lesson of Economics 101 and why all Capuchin monkeys should be paid equally for the price of a rock, however, it is more a lesson on malicious Envy, a deadly sin.

Keynesian economics, taught in our colleges and universities, tells us that “The United States has rather more income inequality than most other industrialized countries,” and “The distribution of income in the United States has grown substantially more unequal since about 1980.” (Economics Principles and Policy, William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, tenth edition, p. 450)

First of all, we are not Capuchin monkeys. Secondly, food is not income, nor pay, unless we live in a primitive society and use food as commodity money.

Thirdly, progressives recite the politically correct talking points that agitate and enrage them, demanding equal pay, an economic impossibility. They have failed to learn in school the real causes of income inequality.

1.      Differences in ability (Some of us can do math faster, some are better wordsmiths, some program computers more accurately, some run faster, some can play an instrument, and some are born with poor health due to genetic mutations or have different IQs.)

2.      Differences in intensity of work (Some like or are able to work longer hours without making mistakes)

3.      Risk taking (Entrepreneurs gamble sometimes all they have and win, other times they lose and start all over again with the same energy and curiosity)

4.      Compensating wage differentials (Some people work the night shift or work very dangerous jobs that other people are not willing to take; consequently they must be paid more as an incentive to work.)

5.      Schooling and other types of training (Those who go to college and receive a degree with an employable skill are going to receive higher pay upon graduation; those who choose to end their learning with a high school diploma or a worthless college degree with no possibility of employment at the end of four years, will experience an income differential that they will not like but it was based on a voluntary decision.)

6.      Work experience (Research has proven that workers with more experience earn higher wages.)

7.      Inherited wealth (Children of wealth can go to more expensive schools and can finance businesses and thus potential success; there is no guarantee that inherited wealth will make one successful but, in most cases, it is quite beneficial; Chelsea Clinton received a very high salary on her first job even though she had no experience whatsoever in the field, it was based strictly on nepotism.)

8.      Luck (Chance and luck play important part in income inequality. Someone develops an idea that makes him/her a multi-millionaire. At the same time, thousands others toil for years on great ideas that never take off.)

When it comes to unequal pay due to economic discrimination, Americans find this intolerable. Economic discrimination, according to Economics 101, happens when equal factors of production receive different payments for equal contributions to output. This sounds great in theory but in practice, how do you measure, each and every time that two factors of production are equivalent; it is always a subjective determination, not a precise and objective one.

You may spend eight hours a day at your desk but your productivity may be half of someone else’s because you spent part of the time day dreaming, surfing, taking breaks, talking to your co-workers, playing computer games, and not turning your assigned report on time. Should you get paid the same as another person who completed twice as much work as you in eight hours? In the case of assembly line production, it is easier to measure productivity based on the number of widgets you produce.

Even Keynesian economists agree that “equality is bought at a price” and that there are better ways to promote equality by seeking policies that do the least possible harm to incentives and efficiency in the economy. They prefer redistribution of income to fight poverty. “Neither complete laissez faire nor complete equality would normally be society’s optimal choice.”

Centralized planning economics has experimented with equal incomes for most professions, and failed miserably in every communist country it was tried, with disastrous effects. People became even lazier than they are by nature, hid and slept part of the day instead of working, pretended to work because they knew the commies pretended to pay them, justified stealing from work to supplement income, and developed a black market in order to survive.

Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, a social critic and a psychologist, wrote a book, The Bell Curve, which became rather controversial due to the claims made on the distribution of IQ tests on a bell curve. Most people clustered in the middle, with fewer at both ends.

As Baumol and Blinder said, “No one doubts that intelligence contributes to economic success, nor that genetics has some bearing on intelligence.” But some argue that environmental factors are more important than genetics in determining intelligence and that “true” intelligence is different from test-measured intelligence. I might add common sense, which is not so common anymore, to the list of economic success. Cognitive ability is certainly not the main ingredient in economic success. Why else would a ball player and some actors make so much money? They have a unique skill or talent that most people don’t have.

To sum it up simply, we are not Capuchin monkeys, envy is a sin, and, in my humble experience, progressive equal pay at all levels is a utopian communist promise that cannot be fulfilled; it is just equal misery for all.


 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Eminent Domain and Property Rights

If you ever wondered how entitled to your land and how cocky your elected board of supervisors are in regards to your property, all you have to do is watch the short video clip of such a “civil servant” from Dallas City Council, frustrated that she cannot confiscate for pennies on the dollar via eminent domain, the property of a wealthy Texan who had the money to fight them for years.

Monty Bennett owns the East Texas Ranch LP which has been in his family since 1955 when it was purchased by his grandparents. Tarrant Regional Water District wanted to run huge pipes through his property and he did not want the family land altered by the digging and wildlife affected by the 84-inch pipes. He sued them under Civil Action No.2014C-0144.

It was reported that Bennett tried to speak to the TRWD but “they refused to see him.” To protect his land, Bennett did something that even a famous Roman tried to do in order to avoid paying taxes to the Roman Empire, he buried a fly on his property with pomp and circumstance. Bennett actually built a final resting place on his property. Texas Law 711.035 exempts cemeteries from “taxation, seizure by creditors and eminent domain.”

There is one “public servant” in support of Bennett’s fight, Henderson County Commissioner Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin, who does not like the idea of eminent domain. He is quoted as saying to the Athens Review, “First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain. The government can come take property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can’t see that being right.”

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often make contracts with property owners in exchange for grant money or reduced taxation. They are called “easements.” These NGOs are distributing grants to landowners strapped for cash who often enter into them in perpetuity, unable to do much to their land unless the NGO approves.

The property owners who have agreed to the terms of the pipes running through their property did not understand the size and the scope of the digging and the amount of mud excavated in the process. Geeslin said, “I don’t understand why they have not looked for alternative routes for the pipeline. They could possibly find a route that would not affect so many people.”

As it stands, the city was forced, after much litigation and expense in court to the tune of millions in taxpayer dollars, to alter the plans and to move around Bennett’s property. The Dallas City Council was asked to settle the case with Bennett out of court.

Sandy Greyson, District 12, was beside herself with indignation that she could not take a rich man’s land who had enough money to fight them in perpetuity. She did not believe that it was fair that Bennett had so much money and could fight them in court when “ordinary people, who cannot afford to fight the city of Dallas,” lose their property. It seemed outrageous to her that she could not take his property too. She said, “He’s fought us for years and has cost Dallas taxpayers millions of dollars.”

 “I’m not blaming anyone that we’re settling this case, but it’s just infuriating that if you’re rich enough, you can hold the city hostage for years and get what you want. There’s something really wrong with that,” she said. She did not see anything wrong with taking someone’s property that the City Council did not own, it was just wrong because she could not take everybody’s property.

As reported, the government is a victim because it no longer wishes to spend money on court costs or cannot afford to, in order to “force a citizen to give up land he does not want to sell.” http://www.sott.net/article/352989-City-council-in-Texas-furious-they-cannot-just-take-mans-land-who-is-rich-enough-to-fight-them

We understand the need for land in order to build highways, schools, hospitals, and interstates but, when the government intercedes on behalf of commercial businesses, claiming that the public good’s economic benefit exceeds the interests of the property owners, is an entirely different issue.  A business should pay for the land competitive market prices if the land owner is interested in selling.

Confiscating the land by condemning a poor neighborhood in order to build a shopping mall, a hotel, a bike path running in front of a person’s house and through an old beloved magnolia tree, cut down without permission, or a parking lot, is problematic at best, particularly when the local government gets to decide what a fair price for the land in question is.

The councilwoman obviously did not have in mind “the greater good” claimed by eminent domain for the people in her precinct. She just wanted landowners to bend to the Council’s wishes sooner rather than later.

 

 

Monday, June 12, 2017

Donald Trump, Our American President

On any given day, our president fights hard to do what is right for our country, to strengthen our economy, to create jobs, to fix the ailing infrastructure, to repair the dismal Obamacare, and to represent the American people’s interests, all Americans, on the world stage.

Never has one American president been so vilified by the left for doing so much good in America, in such a short period of time. He has given up so much wealth, luxury, comfort, and a good life in order to seek and win the Presidency of the U.S., the most difficult job in the world, and, for him specifically, the most thankless job in the world.

I cannot think of a better person to answer a three a.m. call when he must make a life and death decision for our country. He may tweet too much, talk at times off the cuff, but he is a shrewd and intelligent businessman who can read people and situations well, does not buckle in the face of pressure and adversity, rallies honestly most outcomes to his advantage, and wins in the end.

He loves America, he beams with pride when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited, and he sings when our National Anthem is played. I cannot remember a president who was more proud of his country than President Donald Trump. He reminds me of a happy American who is able to buy or build his first home. President Trump’s first and most important home is America, a proud legacy for almost two and half centuries which he aims to protect and make even greater.

He is tireless and perennially positive, no matter how vicious the MSM attacks him or the progressive Hollywood mocks him. He ignores them like the “vermin” and “coelenterates” that they are, to use a famous talk show host favorite epithet for the media.

Dr. Savage gave Donald Trump a serious journalistic platform to convey his message to the American people about his vision for America. He asked him all the right questions, with great concern for the future of our children and grandchildren. In a way, through his numerous interviews on his show, Dr. Savage helped elect our President and steered him in the right direction, in the direction that the American people, who love our country, want their children and grandchildren to go.

President Donald J. Trump has the energy and patriotism of many former presidents rolled into one. Just looking at his busy calendar on any given day, it becomes quite clear that he works non-stop for America. It is quite refreshing to see an energetic 71 year-young billionaire selflessly dedicate his every waking moment to all Americans’ wellbeing, half of whom trash him, demonstrate against him, vilify him, and make up fake and vile stories about him. These are anti-American, self-loathing humans who happen to live and share our space while making fortunes in the very environment they abhor.

President Trump is making great strides in fulfilling the campaign promises he had made. He delivered on the regulatory relief for America. He has strengthened relations with key allies such as President Klaus Johannis of Romania, in the common strategic partnership for the fight against terrorism. He has presented a plan to rebuild America’s infrastructure. He has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, a move celebrated by those who believe that climate does not change because of human activity and a move disparaged by the left fear mongers who are angry that our taxpayers’ dollars will no longer be redistributed to the third world through U.N. schemes.

Between speeches to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, crashing a wedding at one resort, welcoming the Clemson Tigers at the White House, helping reopen a mine in Pennsylvania which had been closed by the draconian anti-carbon EPA regulations, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, and protecting those jobs in danger from cheap foreign labor, there is no doubt that President Donald Trump puts America first.

President Trump’s efforts are recognized and applauded by his supporters and the objective, real media does take notice.

"America's small-business owners are highly confident about their prospects for the next year and optimistic about the state of the U.S. economy..." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/small-business-owners-confident-about-economy-and-future-of-business.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170612_ADM_1600-Daily

"The Trump administration has made approval of natural gas exports a key part of its energy and national security strategy. The U.S. is the world's top producer of oil and gas due to the fracking and shale energy boom." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-perry-first-ever-natural-gas-exports-offer-hedge-against-russia/article/2625505?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170612_ADM_1600-Daily

"By approaching the nation's infrastructure problem like a businessman, Trump can actually deliver the goods — without spending the country into bankruptcy — by focusing on the real cause: Big Government itself.” http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trumps-bridge-to-the-future/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170612_ADM_1600-Daily

This week our President Donald J. Trump dedicated his efforts to workforce development. As companies are struggling to fill vacancies that require skills and training that our workforce may or may not have, he hopes to close the skills gap and to make sure that Americans go to school to train for jobs that are available now and in the future.

Love him or hate him, we can sleep a little easier that President Trump is our President; we pray for his safety and his family’s, and we thank God every day that, for the next four years, we are in good, America-loving hands.

 

Oceans, Climate Change Hysteria, and More Wealth Redistribution

Wikipedia photo
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) held a “side event” on June 6, 2017 during the “first-ever” United Nations Ocean Conference. This side event’s topic was “
Ocean Health, Climate Change and Migration: Understanding the Nexus and Implications for People on the Move.”


The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Permanent Mission of Madagascar and Ecuador partnered with IOM to promote the implementation of Sustainable Development, Goal #14 of U.N.’s Agenda 2030, “to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.” https://www.iom.int/news/iom-highlights-ocean-health-climate-change-migration-inaugural-un-ocean-conference

The idea of all these U.N. sponsored conferences around the globe is that, if the United Nations is in control and is the ultimate decision-maker, all the goals of the Agenda 2030 can be easily implemented and the wealth redistributed to all third world nations while protecting Mother Earth from hysterical Armageddon.

The Permanent Mission of Fiji noted that “the ocean is part of everyday life in Fiji – they are not only linked to livelihoods but are also an integral part of our cultural heritage.”

The event was moderated by Rosiland Jordan, U.N. Correspondent for Al Jazeera, and the audience was composed of “member state representatives, civil society, academics, scientists, journalists, and NGOs.”

Presentations were made by John Tanzer (WWF), Jean Randriannatenaina (Regional Maritime Information Fusion Center, Madagascar), Francoise Gail (Scientific Advisor, Ocean and Climate Platform), and Mariam Chazalnoel (IOM) on “direct consequences that climate change-related modification to the global ocean have on island and coastal populations as the environment, economy and livelihoods of many of these communities depend on oceans” and examples were given of changes that influence the “migration patterns of affected communities as well as the daily lives of communities receiving migrants.”

Ashraf El Nour, Director to the IOM Office of the U.N., discussed displacement of communities and the impact on human settlements located near or who depend on the world’s oceans for their survival. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 24.2 million people were displaced in 2016 due to natural disasters in the world, mainly floods and storms, clearly weather events, claiming that “many of them were made worse by the climate change impacts in oceans’ coastal areas.”

We do know that such claims of global warming/anthropogenic climate change effects are false and were debunked by scientific data, many studies that contradict U.N.’s IPCC computer modeling and fear-mongering.

This IOM side-event also noted that “slow environmental degradation in coastal areas, such as sea level rise or coastal erosion, are also expected to have long-term impact on migration, as people move preemptively to find alternative livelihoods or are forced to relocate inland.”

The topics discussed were specifically chosen to harmonize with the Partnership Dialogues of the Ocean Conference which must support Agenda 2030’s Goal 14:

-          Managing, protecting and conserving marine and coastal ecosystems (PD2)

-          Ocean acidification (PD 3)

-          Making fisheries sustainable (PD 4)

-          Increasing economic benefits to small islands developing states and least developed countries (PD 5) – more wealth redistribution schemes

There are many stakeholders in this environmental fearmongering. Additionally, the Ocean Conference was promoted as an opportunity to push migration and oceans in preparation for the COP23 climate change/fossil fuels negotiations in Bonn, Germany, in November 2017.

Instead of vilifying the gas of plant life, carbon dioxide (CO2), the discussion should have focused on the garbage pollution of the world’s oceans by the top eight countries in Asia, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

Millions of tons of plastic trash float into the world’s oceans yearly. A 2015 study published in the Science journal found that “Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine which countries contribute the greatest mass of uncaptured waste available to become plastic marine debris. Without waste management infrastructure improvements, the cumulative quantity of plastic waste available to enter the ocean from land is predicted to increase by an order of magnitude by 2025. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

China, for example, with its heavily coastal population, dumps approximately 1.3 million to 3.5 million metric tons of plastic into the oceans per year, mostly because of its mismanaged waste. According to the study, if the top 20 countries would cut their mismanaged waste by half, the mass of floating plastic would drop by 41 percent.

Sea mammals, fish, and even smaller invertebrates can gulp pieces of plastic or become entangled in fishing nets or plastic debris. Eventually some of the broken plastic trash sinks to the bottom.

“Quantifying the precise amount that ultimately washes out to sea is problematic, though, since there is a dearth of reliable data.”

“Few of the top contributing countries have adequate infrastructure for handling trash disposal, the study authors noted. Even with a well-developed infrastructure to handle solid waste, the U.S. contributed 40,000 to 110,000 metric tons per year, and ranked 20th, they found.” http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-tons-of-plastic-trash-in-oceans-20150213-story.html

 

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

DICED is UN's Environmental Constitution for the World and Our Own Constittution Will Be Diced

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.” https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

 The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

 
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).


The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”


The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)


The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”


Article 2 describes in detail "respect for all life forms."

Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”

Article 5 refers to "equity and justice," code words for socialism/communism.

Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
 
Article 19 deals with "Stratospheric Ozone." Rex Communis is the customary international law regime applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space." (p. 72)

Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.

Article 31, "Action to Eradicate Poverty," requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.

Article 32 requires recycling, "consumption and production patterns."

Article 33, "Demographic policies," demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.

Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.”The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.

Article 37 discusses "Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how "Transboundary Natural Resources" will be conserved, "quantitatively and qualitatively." According to the document, "conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained."

Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.

 “Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.

“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”

 "Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology" is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.

Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.


Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.


Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a "world constitution for global governance," an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.

It did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.

President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy.  Once President Obama declared that the science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called anthropogenic.

Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate change but it is not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere or sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.

How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.

The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”

Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.

The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”

Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”

Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”

Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”
http://tennesseestar.com/2017/06/05/nashville-mayor-megan-barry-i-am-committed-to-meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris-agreement-even-if-the-president-is-not/

 These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city, and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of “transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.

There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).

James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the massive lie of global warming is true. http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#stash.ktFOtSb7.rFipkQZb.dpbs

India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/

Delingpole cites in the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/

Dr. Charles Battig amply documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations  (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning” onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input into the plans. http://www.slideserve.com/zilya/by-charles-battig-md-piedmont-chapter-va-scientists-and-engineers-for-energy-and-environment

Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.