Thursday, May 31, 2012

Butler on Business WAFS 1190 Atlanta

My radio commentary on 5/30/12 on the topics of TSA, drones, and other freedoms lost. I come on at the 19 minute mark.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Liberty on Life Support When Uncle Sam is Comatose

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Pennsylvania Assembly, November 11, 1755)

When I was young, measuring life’s curves and frustrations through the prism of serenity seemed like a wonderful idea. Would the source of my momentary ire and stress be important in five years? Following this simplistic advice, would anything matter in 100 years since every person alive at this moment will likely be dead?

However, our great grandchildren will be alive. What kind of society will we leave behind for them? Will they live in relative freedom or will they be serfs to a totalitarian regime, be it communism, fascism, Islamism, or a global kingdom of worship to Gaia, the atheists’ religion?

Would they still have rights from God, freedom of movement, speech, assembly, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Will these rights be permitted only if the government desired?  Would time become a commodity that the government will imprint into a chip on our arms, determining from a central command whether we live or die if we worked hard and long enough?

It sounds Orwellian but nobody thought twenty years ago that a noiseless drone could fly over our heads to kill targeted civilians, guided by a faceless bureaucrat in a bunker thousands of miles away, and that we would have an assassination czar to make just such decisions of life and death without the benefit of due process. During the early days of America through the late sixties, those were called lynchings.

All three branches of government already reject and trample our Constitution, controlling our lives as they please to the benefit of a communistic collective good. We are no longer free; we have not felt slavery yet in all its painful forms. The thirst for power and control can cause seemingly normal people to act in ways that dehumanize and pervert the soul.

We have criminals hired “for our own safety” who molest babies, children, women, and the elderly at airports, trains, and other public places. They are hired on purpose to acquaint us with maltreatment and to dehumanize. They spread disease through disposable gloves that are never changed. They herd us through powerful scanners that cause cancer, rifle through our belongings, rough us up, with total disregard for our rights, yet TSA has never caught actual terrorists. The hired goons are the terrorists. How much worse will it be in 100 years?

The government manufactured many crises since 2008, TARP and bailouts, in order to save its Wall Street financial contributors who have made bad investments. Were they “too big to fail?” Will bailing out Wall Street be our eventual doom as a nation?

The government has blown out of proportion many small potential threats of terrorism in order to pretend that they kept us safe from terrorism. Have they stopped or caught one single terrorist yet? Perhaps they did and we do not know. When potential attacks were halted, private citizens rose to the occasion. They happened to be alert and overpowered the would-be terrorists. The TSA-hired goons never stopped an attack.

Would the government ration food to its citizens in 100 years? Would they ration free time, faith, entertainment, freedom of movement, reproduction, health care, and mobility? It is already happening; we have not felt the full brunt of it yet.

Would thought police control our great grandchildren in 100 years? There are devices that can do that already but are not used on a large scale. Germans had a song called, “Die Gedanken sind frei,” thoughts are free, but are they, and will they be? The idea of the song was that, if you imprisoned an individual, no matter what you did to that person, you could not control their thoughts; the intense human desire for freedom and escape would prevail.

Would there be a military in 100 years with the changed mission to control and imprison citizens instead of serving and protecting them from foreign invaders? Would it be such a stretch since we already have NDAA 2012 in place, approved by a Congress who no longer represents the interests of its constituency and of “we the people?”

We no longer have a Constitution that anybody follows, the government entities authorize what they want, write whatever laws and executive orders they want, regulate everything into oblivion, tax us to the benefit of the welfare recipients who support them, and spread our wealth to the rest of the globe in the name of social justice.

As 50 percent of the population who pays no taxes and receives welfare is happy with their representative government, the rest of Americans remain docile and silent in their disgruntled compliance. One hundred years from now, our great grandchildren will ask, why did our great grandfathers and great grandmothers accept maltreatment with such sheepish compliance? What happened to their courage to resist?

Americans who preserved our freedom until now rest at Arlington National Cemetery and in cemeteries around the world. Their courage and altruism were not in vain nor forgotten. Memorial Day is celebrated to remember the ultimate sacrifice made in defense of our freedom. Where is the new generation to take up the banner of liberty and to sacrifice for their country?

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Republic Broadcasting Network - Law of the Sea Treaty

My radio show with Republic Broadcasting Network on Law of the Sea Treaty.
I come on in the second hour.

Friday Radio Chat with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas

My Friday chat with Silvio Canto Jr. on national, Cuban, and European issues.

A Cow, Wisdom, and Economics

I have always learned from the wisdom of my senior generation. As a child, I sat spellbound in the twilight around the elders of the village, listening to their stories. The lessons learned were priceless and fascinating for someone who “had not seen the world yet.” The moral of those long ago and faraway sagas have served me well through life.

I was delighted when, Ionel Iloae, a Romanian journalist, told a humorous story, albeit dark humor, of an entire village in Dragata, Moldova, who ate a “mad” cow. He was not talking about mad cow disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome, but a cow that had been bitten by a rabid animal, presumably a fox.

The drama started with a family’s cow breaking a window and exhibiting the strange behavior of kicking the walls of the barn. Frightened, the Chiriacs called in the veterinarian, Robert Ciubotaru. After the cow was immobilized, the vet took blood samples and warned the family to stay away, as he was suspecting that the cow was infected with rabies.

The rabies virus is a neurotropic virus that causes fatal disease in humans and animals, the transmission occurring through saliva, hence the speculation that the cow had been bitten by an already infected animal.

A cow is a very precious and lucrative commodity on a farm. Why let such an opportunity go to waste? The wife decided to slaughter the animal before it expired, cook part of it for her family, and sell the rest to the village for 10 lei a kilogram. Word spread like wildfire and the villagers came in droves to buy fresh meat sold so much cheaper than the going price. Some, who left empty-handed and disappointed when the meat ran out, did not realize how lucky they were.

By sun down, Elena Chiriac sold all the beef, about 200 kilos. The village police officer bought some but the mayor left disappointed. People all over the village had a feast and enjoyed their fresh beef. Elena cooked the liver immediately - it was her favorite dish.

The next morning, the results of the blood test came in. The cow was rabid and everybody had to turn in the meat bought the previous day. A large hole was dug up, the leftover meat was thrown in with a good dose of diesel and a fire was lit up until every piece of the poor animal was burned.

I never liked or ate beef personally – cows were always pets for me. My Grandparents kept them for dairy purposes. We milked them and made butter and cheese. Cows had a good and long life on our farm; they always died of old age, not disease. Only then were they sent to the city slaughterhouse.

Twenty-five people admitted that they had consumed the infected meat, the rest of the villagers were too ashamed. Only the fear of a painful death by rabies convinced the rest to submit to immediate vaccination. The mayor and the prefect had to obtain special dispensation for immediate delivery of all the necessary vaccines or the entire village would die.

The remorseful Elena, who knew better, but was more interested in the economics of her cow than the safety of her neighbors, hid in shame. A retired teacher and a village elder, everybody trusted her.

The incubation period of a rabies infection is 20 to 90 days. If the vaccine is administered immediately, there are no dangers. The virus enters through saliva and micro-lesions in the skin. After 30 days from infection, the disease becomes fatal. There are some cases in Africa of a rabies strain in the Yellow Mongoose where the animal can live asymptomatic for years.

The Director of DSV in charge of the food supply and animal safety did not assign blame to anyone. “The woman is not responsible that her cow got sick. We will assess the situation and pay the owner for the cow. We found the rabies in time, people are being vaccinated, and the risks are minor.”

As Ionel Iloae so aptly describes it, in Moldova everything is handled with kindness – even a potential “small accidental genocide.” The whole story would make a perfect comedy of errors plot.

Most people, who lined up at the village dispensary in a state of agitation to be vaccinated, admitted, “It was an issue of national interest.” Some villagers have refused the vaccine so far. From a family of eight who ate the tainted beef, only one person admitted to have eaten the meat, and time is running out. The cow was slaughtered on May 12.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Animal Welfare and Food Control

Animal rights groups believe that animals have the same rights as people. Our diets and daily life should be free of any animal-based products. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) subscribe to the idea that animals have equal rights to humans. “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” by Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA, shockingly exemplifies the animal rights creed.

Cass Sunstein, the administration’s regulatory czar, believes that animals must be represented in a court of law, hunting must be banned, animal use is slavery, and animals should not be subjects in scientific research. He wants extensive regulation of animal husbandry.

Animal welfare groups promote the belief that animals should be treated humanely but are not equal to humans. Most people I know fall into this group. We have pets and we treat them well.

The Executive Order 13575, “Establishment of the White House Rural Council,” of June 9, 2011, was issued to regulate the lives of sixteen percent of our population, the rural population, taking federal control of our food supply, water, and land. This Executive Order strengthened President Obama’s “green agenda” of Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is a concept based on the manufactured global warming/climate change crisis advanced by United Nations Agenda 21.

H.R. 3798, when passed, will control our food supply via “uniform, national cage size requirements for table-laying hens by adding national standards for laying-egg housing.” The conventional cages of 67 square inches of floor space will transition to enriched cages that would “nearly double the floor space and have perch spaces, dusting or scratching areas, and nesting areas that would allow laying hens to express natural behaviors that conventional cages do not allow.” In addition to cage sizes, labeling requirements and other production practices will be controlled by the federal government. (Joel L. Green, Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, May 14, 2012)

Former enemies, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the United Egg Producers (UEP) have joined forces with 57 cosponsors to help pass H.R. 3798. The bill has not been introduced to the Senate yet and may be eventually attached to the 2012 omnibus bill. If it does not pass, “U.S. courts may be asked to address the interstate movement of eggs.” (Congressional Research Service)

The opposition, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the National Pork Producers Council, criticized this legislation on grounds that it sets a “dangerous precedent” and “takes away producers’ freedom to operate in a way that’s best for their animals, takes away citizens’ right to vote on cages, and prevents state legislatures from passing laws to protect laying hens.” (Congressional Research Service)

The supporters, agricultural, veterinary, consumer, and animal protection groups, have joined the “green” environmentalists. “Egg farmers believe a single national standard is the only way to shape their own future as sustainable, family-owned businesses.”

High production costs will be passed on to consumers and small farms will go out of business in the process of cage conversion. This may be the ultimate goal, the destruction of small farms and the takeover by a few, government approved big producers. How far of a stretch would it be to extend the bill to all food grown or raised on a farm? Pig farmers have been put out of business in Michigan.

Supporters tout the cage requirements as based on science, while the opposition retorts that cage dimensions are not based on specific scientific research. Opponents to the bill also argue, “That U.S. producers already raise and manage their animals with practices that are science-based, overseen by veterinarians, and that animal welfare is a priority for livestock and poultry producers.” (Joel L. Green and Tadlock Cowan)

Hollywood celebrities support PETA, “citing animal welfare issues, environmental issues, and social justice issues, calling for zero consumption of meat and animal products.” Yet the same celebrities do not say a word about the inhumane practice of “halal,” when animals’ throats are slashed and left to die a long and agonizing death on the floor of the slaughterhouse.

The overall egg production in 2011 (including 13 billion hatching eggs) was 79 billion table eggs from a flock of 282 million birds, valued at $7.4 billion. Iowa leads the way in egg production, with twice as many as any other state, at 14.3 billion eggs. (“Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: The UEP-HSUS Agreement and H.R. 3798” as quoted from USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service)

Sixty-four percent of Californian voters passed Proposition 2, the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, on the 2008 ballot initiative. California’s specifications are far different from the proposed H.R. 3798. There is a reason why so many businesses have fled the state - overregulation and over the top taxation.

European Union banned battery cages (traditional cages) and adopted enriched cages or a non-cage system.  “Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognizes animals as sentient beings and requires that full regard be given to the welfare of animals when formulating and implementing EU policy.” EU took legal action in January 2012 against countries that were non-compliant – Belgium Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain. (Congressional Research Service)

The European Commission issued a “science-based protection and welfare of animals policy,” which included animal welfare centers. It will be interesting to see how the EU Commission will enforce the law uniformly and punish the numerous offenders who raise and slaughter animals according to their countries’ traditions.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

UN Agenda 21 and the Military

Welcome to UN Agenda 21 “sustainability” in the last bastion of capitalism – the U.S. military. According to the May 19, 2012 issue of Army Times, “The Defense Department, like other federal agencies, is already under orders from the White House to curb energy use throughout its operations and emphasize Sustainable Development. “Planners must make bases more walkable.”(Sean Reilly)

The euphemisms concocted by the environmentalists with the Club of Rome, the original developers of the scare tactic idea of fabricated global warming/climate change catastrophes, have made their way into the military lingo.

The federal government guidelines demand “compact development,” “mass transit,” “energy conservation,” “sustainable development,” and high-rise mixed housing five-minute walk from shops and work.  Land preservation must be included in military missions, a monumental challenge, costing a huge amount of taxpayer dollars since the Defense Department has 300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet.

Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, described U.S. military bases as “very sprawling, very auto-centric; you have to have a car to get around.” She bemoaned the fact that one base has 70,000 parking spots and the daily population never exceeds 40,000. “Urban sprawl” destroys Mother Nature and must be eventually eradicated by the environmentalist lobby.  All confiscated land will be rededicated to wilderness.

Mark Gillen, professor of architecture at the University of Oregon, describes how soldiers have to drive up to an hour from the housing area to the commissary at Aviano Air Base in Italy. That is a huge stretch - I was there and it only took me five minutes. The supposed environmental problem could be solved quite simply by closing the base in Aviano. Italy can defend itself. They can take the generous welfare expenditures from their budget and allocate the funds for their own defense.

Military forced compliance with UN Agenda 21 has been in planning and development for 18 months. “The guidance applies to all installation master planning and represents the first rewrite of DoD’s policy in a quarter century.” (Sean Reilly, Army Times)

The military leadership explains that transit-oriented development reduces traffic congestion and accident rates while encouraging walking, bicycling, and overall healthy communities. This is a ridiculous excuse since a soldier, by definition, has to be healthy and fit in order to serve in the military. Walking and biking actually increase accident rates of hit and run. There are retirees, even young ones, who are handicapped, and biking and walking is not an option for them. We have thousands of soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Iran with severe, life altering disabilities.

David A. Deptula, a retired three star general, paints a very sad picture of America’s aging Air Force fleet with its F-15s and the Cold War era B-52 bombers. After one F-15 fighter disintegrated in mid-air in 2007, the entire fleet was grounded. “Stretching the life of military aircraft puts our fighting men and women in mortal danger.” (Mike Brownfield, Heritage Foundation)

Because of drastic cutbacks in the military for cost-saving reasons, at a time when the world threat to our country is at an all time high, we do not have money to refurbish and modernize the military capability. We let soldiers fight in Afghanistan and Iraq with scarce resources and protection, having to duct-tape their body armor to non-armored vehicles in order to provide some level of safety.

The military is more concerned with rules and regulations, like a soldier being licensed properly to drive an un-armored SUV through a war zone. Those who make ill-conceived rules from the safety of their offices in Washington, D. C. do not worry that this soldier might be blown off by a roadside bomb because his vehicle is not armored.

Trying to shape the military in lock step with United Nations Agenda 21 of “greening” and saving the planet from the destructive activities of humans, the federal government spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change” since 2008. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) criticized the current administration for its “drastic cuts in personnel, brigade combat teams, tactical fighters, and airlift aircraft in the last four years, along with the cancellation or postponement of specialized ship and aircraft construction.” (Caroline May, Daily Caller, May 17, 2012)

“Which would you rather have? Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-25s or modernized C-130s? Would you rather have $64.8 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?” (Sen. James Inhofe as quoted by Caroline May)

Yet we spend billions to needlessly restructure military bases into global environmentalism compliance. It is more important for our executive branch to “sustain” the so-called endangered environment, and please the environmentalist wackos, than to defend our country.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Leaving China to Find Freedom, Fresh Air, and the Good Life in Eastern Europe

Li Bing Zhi left his native China to become a goat herder in the village of Lacusteni in southern Romania. His animals produced milk and cheese for Chinese restaurants in the capital Bucharest.  He traded his forceps of an OBGYN in China for a shepherd’s staff. His wife, a mathematics professor, and his son are still in China.

He tried his hand at raising pigs first but the business went belly up because the pigs were not gaining weight fast enough in spite of the nutritious feed. In China, pigs gained 100 kilos in six months. He decided instead to grow Chinese vegetables, cabbage, and to raise 150 goats with his associate’s father.

Constantin Dragan and Dan Mihalacea, reporters for Realitatea TV, interviewed Li Bing Zhi in February 2011. In broken Romanian and a jocular mien, Li Bing explained that he paid his workers well when they showed up for work. After they drank their pay at the end of the month, they returned to work sheepishly. Since they were so undependable, Li Bing bought a few dogs that he trained himself. Li Bing gave his goats Romanian names like Monica, Tantica, and Tapul.

Most villagers accepted their new neighbor with open arms and called him “our Chinese.” A small group, however, were not impressed with him and resented the fact that his goats ate the grass that nobody used or needed anyway but that was not the point. He was intruding on no man’s lands, grazing his goats in the woods and other pastures, and he did not belong in their village. Besides, he worked very hard and earned good money, a source of envy and discord.

Three years ago, Li Bing Zhi opened a business in Bucharest. When it failed, he moved with one of his associates to her native village of Lacusteni de Sus. What was his explanation for settling in such an unlikely place, far away from his native China and his family?

Li Bing traded the pollution and restrictions of communist China for fresh air, freedom, and a good life in the formerly communist country of Romania, more capitalist today than many countries in Western Europe. He said, he wanted to settle there permanently - “Where else could I go? Maybe the cemetery?” I was a doctor in China but I now raise goats in Romania.”

The case of this Chinese doctor fascinated me because he fled from a totalitarian state to a formerly totalitarian state. I judged his move through the prism of my experience. I have moved from a totalitarian state to the United States, which was the beacon of freedom at the time in late seventies, the “shining city on the hill.” Today, considering the accelerated change towards socialism/Marxism and welfare dependency in the United States, would I move again to my adopted country, or would I choose perhaps a newly emerging capitalist country like Romania?

Freedom, fresh air, a good life are very tenuous gifts from God in any society. In 1989, when communism fell, Li Bing would not have chosen Romania as his permanent residence because it was just as oppressive, polluted, and poor as his native China was.

Change for the wrong reason and blind faith in an omnipotent government can take away fragile freedoms and an abundant life. Will we be able to keep our exceptional country based on successful capitalism and Judeo-Christian values? Will Romania be able to keep its fragile newfound capitalist freedom, good life, and fresh air?

Communist agitators and community organizers are on the rise, supported by European socialists and communists that never went away; they just hid in plain sight and re-emerged in larger and larger numbers who are quite well financed.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Convenient Lies and Governance of the Earth

“The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (Tenth Amendment)

While the people of Tombstone, Arizona, are waiting to get water back on line, the federal government is asking them for $80,000 in order to tell me why they cannot have it back unless they use only simple tools to do it with, like hand tools and wheelbarrows. Boulders the size of Volkswagens are trapping the waterlines, buried in some places under 12 ft of mud.

USDA Forest Service alludes to provisions in the Wilderness Act, which forbids the use of heavy machinery. According to Joe Wolverton, II, “water rights granted to Tombstone by the previous title owners predate the enactment of the Wilderness Act by about 80 years.” (The New American)

“The Town too Tough to Die” of 1,600 inhabitants had found itself in the middle of a terrible life and death quandary as a result of the Monument Fire in 2011 which destroyed the Huachuca Mountains pipelines carrying water to the town from the source in the Miller Canyon Wilderness Area. (Joe Wolverton, II, The New American)

According to Hugh Holub, water rights expert, quoted by Joe Wolverton, II, “Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belongs to the farms and ranches and cities.” Lawyers for this administration and environmentalists disagree.

The Club of Rome proclaims in their 1990 publication, The First Global Revolution, on page 75, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.” The paragraph beneath this title describes how they concocted the idea of man-made global warming.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Water shortages can be real or government manufactured like the case of Tombstone, Arizona. The EPA started a “green war” against farmers in the fertile San Joaquin Valley in California; it left one of America’s main agricultural regions a dust bowl in 2009. The EPA-made drought put many farmers out of business, thousands became jobless, and millions of Americans paid higher prices for fruits and vegetables imported from other countries that could have been grown in California. EPA and the environmentalists protected a tiny fish, the delta smelt, while endangering humans.

Maurice Strong and Al Gore are members of the Club of Rome and involved in privately owned carbon-trading groups who stand to gain billions if the man-made global warming fraud survives and the EPA continues to destroy our economy, jobs, and our way of life.

A world government is gaining tract through social science consensus. There is nothing scientific about social science; it is strictly the opinion of a group of people who are in consensus or agreement concerning the need to regulate the planet in line with their beliefs. Science is exact and a fact. Social science is an opinion and a belief derived from personal experience, perception, or five-point scale surveys of groups of like-minded individuals and ignorant people.

In preparation for the UN Agenda Rio +20 conference in June 2012, F. Biermann et al., 33 social scientists, published in Science magazine on March 16, 2012, their contribution to the “earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” The article appears under the heading Science and Government, “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance.”

It does not take a rocket scientist to determine that government policy is not science, consensus is not scientific, and the liberals’ mantra, “global warming science is settled,” is a lie.

Biermann et al. proposed “seven building blocks,” the result of social science-based research conducted in 2011 by the Earth System Governance Project. This paper was designed to “contribute to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which will focus on the institutional framework for sustainable development and possible reforms of the intergovernmental governance system.” The writers believe that, in spite of differences of opinion among social scientists, there is an increasing consensus in many areas, therefore the planet must be ready for one world governance, erasing all traces of sovereignty in the name of saving the planet.

1.      A global environmental agency similar to the World Health Organization should be formed to set agendas, develop norms, manage compliance, assess science, and build capacity.
2.      Integrate sustainable development from local to global levels into a powerful United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

3.      “Better integration of sustainability governance requires governments to close remaining regulatory gaps at the global level,” including the sharing of nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geo-engineering.

Closing regulatory gaps explains the Executive Order on May 1, 2012 on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. “The purpose of the E.O. is to encourage the harmonization of regulatory requirements to simplify regulatory compliance, reduce costs for transnational companies and facilitate international trade.” (Jonathan H. Adler)

4.      Governments must place a “stronger emphasis on planetary concerns in economic governance.”

5.      Voting on global policy must be weighted for some countries and no veto power granted to anyone in order to speed up international norm setting.

6.      “Global governance through UN-type institutions tends to give a larger role to international and domestic bureaucracies, at the cost of national parliaments.”

A simple translation - global governance would supersede national governments. Countries would be divided into regions and/or different interests such as environmentalists, industry, youth, etc. The United States would thus no longer have states; we would have regions and regionalism under the aegis of the United Nations Sustainable Development Council.

7.      Equity and fairness (read socialism/communism) would guide the transfer of wealth to poorer countries. The paper proposes “novel financial mechanisms to transfer wealth through global emissions markets and air transportation levies for sustainability purposes.” The middle class would completely disappear under such equity and fairness. Everyone would be equally poor and miserable, with the self-appointed global governance elites at the top.

The paper oozes a sense of urgency, like thieves trying to steal as much loot as possible before they are discovered and unmasked. These 33 social scientists do not want to stop just at transfer of wealth, destroying the middle class, erasing national boundaries, and neutering national governments, they want to “change the behavior of citizens,” and re-orient “the private sector toward a green economy.”

Sunday, May 13, 2012

How Rich Are European Socialists and Marxists?

The Socialist Francois Hollande is a very rich man. The newly elected president of France has three holiday homes on the Riviera, north of Cannes. Pretending to “dislike the rich,” the “gauche caviar” Hollande is very rich himself.
According to the London Evening Standard and the Official Journal, he has assets of one million British pounds. In addition, the “champagne Socialist” owns a “palatial villa in Mougins, the hilltop Cannes suburb where Pablo Picasso used to live” and two apartments close to the promenade in Cannes. The three villas in Cannes were valued at 800,000 Euros, 230,000 Euros, and 140,000 Euros. Hollande lives with his girlfriend in a well-appointed apartment in Paris.

Attacking the rich who “do not pay their fair share” is just a campaign ploy to pretend that a president cares for the poor. In reality, he is only interested in sharing other people’s money and wealth, not his own.

How do Socialists/Marxists acquire wealth? I am not sure how Mr. Hollande acquired his fortune, perhaps he took entrepreneurial advantage of the very capitalist system he abhors and maligns.

Politicians often enter service quite poor and exit the system fabulously wealthy. Perhaps they use insider trading information to invest money “wisely.” Ordinary citizens would go to jail if caught investing in such a manner. Laws and jail are only for ordinary citizens, politicians are immune to the law.

I do know how many communist elites and their loyal lackeys became millionaires and billionaires in Romania. During the terror reign of Nicolae Ceausescu, they pillaged and confiscated private property from all citizens but particularly the wealth of those who owned multiple homes, land, paintings, gold coins, cars, and jewelry.

Many communists had huge bank accounts in Switzerland and lived like kings while the population starved, fearing for their lives daily, and lucky to be alive. Shortly after Ceausescu and his wife Elena were executed on Christmas 1989, several billion dollars worth of financial aid earmarked for economic development in Romania, disappeared without a trace. To this day, it has not been found, and nobody was held accountable for its disappearance.

Before Romania became part of the European Union in January 2007, the IMF offered loans to individual entrepreneurs to start businesses. The terms were quite lax and no collateral was required. Honest citizens, who had no idea how they would repay millions of Euros, avoided such loans. Dishonest citizens bee-lined to get loans. Businesses went bust and did not have to repay a dime of the squandered capital. Some entrepreneurs were successful but with a lot of corruption and graft.

After 1989, politicians, their families, and former communist party apparatchiks started selling the property of the state to the highest foreign bidders without any input or accountability, and pocketed the money. Regulatory institutions and judges were bribed and nobody went to jail.

All the means of production, previously controlled by the state, were broken up bit by bit, sold, and privatized while the “proletariat” watched in dismay. The working class was supposed to own everything collectively but nobody dared to claim a piece for himself/herself. Nobody could touch the wealth; it was not really theirs to be had. Only the communist elites could enrich themselves at the troph of the communist utopia. The proletariat just got the crumbs if they behaved according to the Communist Party Five Year Plans.

The Economic Police made sure that nobody got ahead of anybody else. Agents, aided by paid informants, made frequent raids in people’s homes to inquire where they got better food, better clothes, or better furniture than anybody else had.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous were a good description of how the dictator, his family, his lackeys, and the Communist Party members lived while the masses seethed in despair. Rebellion was out of the question, guns were confiscated early, and suppression would have been swift and brutal.

Hollande promises to spend lavishly on social programs and new government jobs, more than the 28 percent of GDP that France currently spends on welfare. His subjects will be well fed, expected to deliver a minimum of effort, and a lousy work ethic. After all, in the socialist mind, everything is a right and must be provided by the state free. It is a form of slavery to the government, like a well-behaved and devoted dog who expects nothing else but his daily rations of food and shelter.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The French Will Never Leave the Cafes Now

Socialist France moved further to the left of Putin’s Russia. The French just elected President the leftist Francois Hollande who professes to be the protector of the poor, wants more government handouts (stimulus), and rejects the austerity measures that his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy had cobbled with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor.  

The promise to restore generous social welfare programs brought many enthusiastic French to the polls. They were angry with Sarkozy’s vulgar demeanor, his anti-immigration and integration rhetoric, and immediate intentions to reduce the national debt which is unmanageable without austerity measures.

Hollande promised to tax the “rich,” a mirror image of our government’s rhetoric, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” It was instantaneous music to the ears of the French work ethic. They take pride in reduced workweek, tenure on the first day of work, extended vacations paid by the state, and early retirement. “C’est la vie” and it is very self-indulgent.

Handing out more government dependence (stimulus money) means that the French will never have to leave the caf├ęs now. Occupying all chairs, sipping wine, and chain-smoking, they will be looking down their noses at the inferior uncouth American tourists walking by in their dreadful tennis shoes and awful blue jeans, smiling like idiots.

Socialists have given up any pretense of preserving their national identity – Muslim immigrants who refuse to integrate into French society and remain in their self-appointed ghettos, no longer accessible to French citizens, will eventually outnumber them.

Hollande’s campaign was the “change” Europe needed. He said in a victory speech, “In all the capitals…there are people who give thanks to us, who are hoping, who are looking to us, and who want to finish with austerity. You are a movement lifting up everywhere in Europe, and perhaps the world.” He made no mention of the welfare system that takes up 28 percent of France’s GDP.

Hollande will take office May 16 and his first trip will likely be to Berlin to advocate against the government cuts treaty that Sarkozy negotiated with Merkel. He also intends to pull troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year.

In line with Keynesian economists and far left socialists, Hollande will push for more government spending in order to stimulate economic growth. He wants to tax the rich (anyone making over one million euros) at 75 percent rate and allow retirement at 60 instead of 62, hire more teachers, reduce France’s “dependence” on nuclear energy, legalize euthanasia, and gay marriage. I am trying to figure out how hiring more teachers is going to stimulate or improve the economy. How will he replace the cheap and dependable nuclear energy? Will legalized euthanasia save money?

Jean-Thomas Lesueur gauged the dire economic situation very aptly. “As usual, France went into a bubble and didn’t broach the serious issues. As soon as the election is over, reality will explode in our faces like a grenade and the erosion of public finances will be the big issue for the next president.” (Institut Thomas More, Paris)

If socialists get a majority in the lower house of parliament in June, they will have complete power since they control the Senate. Supporters of Francois Mitterrand, the last socialist president, must be overjoyed.

It is going to be an interesting economic summer since the Greeks will possibly reject the bailout deal. The leader of the Coalition for the Radical Left, Alexi Tsipras, charged with forming a coalition government in Greece, told reporters that the Greek bailout agreement is “null and void.”

Additionally, Tsipras, who does not call himself a Marxist, wants to nationalize banks, restore all salaries and pensions to previous higher levels and bring back union’s collective bargaining rights. He places the financial blame on the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the European Central Bank.

There is no hint or admission of personal responsibility for the welfare state of Greece, for people retiring at 50 in over 600 professions, lengthy vacations paid by the government, free rides on the metro in Athens, widespread cheating on taxes, two extra pay checks at the end of year, socialized medicine, and other entitlements for citizens and illegal immigrants.

It appears that the Marxists are on the march again, stronger than ever, crawling out of the darkness into the spotlight, brazenly, all over Europe and America, demanding the spread of wealth, taxing and taking by force someone’s earned income, rioting to get it, and voting en masse for more welfare. What happens when everybody runs out of other people’s money and taxing the rich 100 percent will not cure the basic problem that ails these countries, sloth, entitlement, and social overspending?

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Global Climate Change Initiative, More Waste of Taxpayer Dollars

President Obama signed on September 22, 2010 the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, elevating foreign development assistance to a national priority status involving development, diplomacy, and national security.

According to Richard K. Lattanzio, analyst in Environmental Policy, the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aims to “foster low-carbon growth, promote sustainable and resilient societies, and reduce emissions from deforestation and land degradation.” (Congressional Research Service)

GCCI is actually three programs, adaptation assistance, clean energy assistance, and sustainable landscapes. The total budget request for FY 2013 is $769.5 million. It may seem like a rounding error when compared with the trillions spent in the past four years, but it is significant.

The adaptation program helps “low-income countries reduce their vulnerability to climate change impacts and build climate resilience” in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in infrastructure, agriculture, health, water, decision-making, sound governance, and food security. Least Developed Country Fund and Special Climate Change Fund address climate resilience and food security. The adaptation program will receive $202.5 million.

The clean energy program will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through clean energy technologies, policies, and practices. International trust funds such as the World Bank, U.N. agencies, and non-governmental organizations will administer the money. The Clean Technology Fund and Program for Scaling-Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries will assist the select low-income countries. The amount dedicated to this program in FY 2013 is $390 million.
“The sustainable landscapes programs aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.” Forest governance, forest cover, and land use change monitoring systems will see that sustainable forest-based livelihoods will be maintained in select lower-income countries through improved regulation and enforcement, biodiversity, and sustainable land use. The watchdog for the latter will be the Global Environmental Facility. The sustainable landscapes programs requested $177 million for FY 2013.

“The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) is funded through programs at the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and USAID. Funds for these programs are appropriated in the Administration’s Executive Budget.”  The budget authority is provided by H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010. (Richard K. Lattanzio)

The author of the study, Richard K. Lattanzio, suggested the following Congressional concerns:

-         Fiscal constraints – Our taxpayer dollars should be used for domestic priorities such as job creation and economic growth instead of other countries at a time when Americans feel the pinch of high unemployment and prolonged recession.

-         Potential for misuse – Bloated bureaucracies, graft, corruption, lack of transparency of how the funds will be used should be huge concerns.

-         Lack of consensus on climate science – “Current uncertainties and ambiguities regarding the fields of atmospheric chemistry and climatology have been offered by some as reasons to postpone and/or reconsider international climate change assistance policies and programs”

I would like to address the use of the phrase “consensus on climate science.” There is no consensus in science. Science is exact and a fact, it is not determined based on “consensus.” Therein lies the problem of the global warming/climate change fraud – it is all based on consensus and that is neither scientific nor science. “Consensus” is based on someone’s feelings, opinion, judgment, or beliefs. The dictionary definition of consensus is “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole,” and that group is the environmental, green growth, sustainability crowd.

Richard K. Lattanzio also provides five reasons why assistance may be necessary:

-         Commercial interests – International climate change assistance benefits U.S. businesses by providing American goods in that market instead of the European Union or China.

-         Investment efficiencies – Working today to avoid climate-related disasters, instabilities, conflicts, and technological needs (This assumes that “climate catastrophes” are man-made and I am not buying that premise because it cannot be proven in any way.)

-         Natural disaster preparedness – “Climate proof” developing countries instead of helping them with ad-hoc disaster such as rebuilding of poor countries’ capital, urgent humanitarian needs, and food shortages. (I can see helping with food and immediate needs in case of a natural disaster; the question remains, why is it always the responsibility of the United States to take care of everybody? There are many other rich countries around the globe that contribute precious nothing in times of crises)

-         National security –“International climate change assistance addresses and mitigates risks to national security.” (I really do not buy this explanation.)

-         International leadership – “International climate change assistance to lower-income countries is a method to increase U.S. leadership in global environmental issues.” (I do not buy this premise either since “climate change” is driven mostly by United Nations and other socialist countries and dictatorships. Climate changed all the time through the ages but it is not a doomsday issue.)

Congress and its various subcommittees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, International Monetary Policy and Trade, State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, International Environment Protection are responsible to oversee the GCCI. Good luck with that since the total amount is such a paltry sum ($769.5 million) for their outrageous spending habits.

The whole effort wastes taxpayer dollars at a time when we cannot afford it. These select low-income countries are not involved in heavy manufacturing that pollute the environment extensively, when you compare them to a major polluting economy like China or the U.S. There may be a cumulative effect but I am sure it pales by comparison.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Saturday, May 5, 2012

The Global Warming Globalist Crowd is on the March Again

The globalists are on the march and quite busy in the month of June 2012. The Rio +20 is meeting in Brazil to check on the progress of United Nations Agenda 21 twenty years later. G-20 is meeting in Mexico to discuss sustainability and the threat to globalism by the Euro zone crisis. The Bildeberg Group (unofficial, invitation-only, annual international forum of 120-140 globalists, one-third from government, two-thirds from finance, industry, labor, education, communication; meetings are closed to the public) are said to meet in Chantilly, Virginia, to share “ideas” on the upcoming presidential election and a possible rescue for EU. We are not exactly sure of the locale of the latter since they have been known to book more than one hotel in order to throw the few real reporters left off track.

Americans are beginning to wake up but it is a bit too late. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to implement UN Agenda 21 concept of Sustainability in all of its activities.

 All government branches have a sustainability plan now. Private businesses are on the bandwagon too – everything is green growth, smart growth, and sustainability. Over 1,600 towns and counties in the U.S. are members of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). They have now changed their name to Local Governments for Sustainability; it takes the “international” out of the equation and thus the illegality of meddling in our sovereign local zoning affairs.

ICLEI has been quietly changing our zoning laws with taxpayer dollar grants. Pliable and cooperative local “visioning committees” have been working with international bodies against the U.S. Constitution and the interests of the local citizens.

Nothing is produced, serviced, or repaired any more unless it has the word “sustainable” attached to it. I wonder how we sustained ourselves for thousands of years before globalists, environmentalists, and global warming progressives invented themselves?

All federal agencies deny any connection to UN Agenda 21 and label people who bring it up as “agenders,” which is a polite way of saying “tin foil/mad hatters.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s President Council on Sustainable Development, said in 1998:

“Participating in a United Nations advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society...This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a United Nations invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away, would actively work to defeat elected official who joined the ‘conspiracy’ by undertaking local UN Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.”
I believe his narrative is called ‘projection.’ He describes well what they are doing while pretending that it is someone else. I have seen liberals and bureaucrats engaging in this type of rhetoric in order to malign the other side.  According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism – a person or group "projects" their own unsavory thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto another group or person.

Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, asked in a joint Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-National Academy of Sciences (NAS) meeting on November 30, 2010, to convene a committee of experts to provide EPA with an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions.  NAS recommended that “EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘three pillars’ approach of ‘social, environment, and economic dimensions of sustainability.” (

The EPA has adopted “sustainability impact assessments as their basic tool for issuing draconian regulations.” It is no longer an agency that protects the environment but an agency to destroy capitalism and take away American citizens’ property rights, while pushing them further away from access to wilderness areas.

EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz compared his agency’s modus operandi to enforce oil and gas regulations with the Romans crucifying a few enemies in order to bring about speedy submission.

Nobody disputes the fact that some basic regulations are necessary in order to protect the environment from the worst offenders. However, what started as a well-intentioned program to safeguard our water, air, and soil, has turned into a green multi-headed, freedom and sovereignty killing monster.

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, exemplifies how draconian the sustainable policies of the EPA will be. He told conference participants in 1992:

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.”

Plans are under way to say good-bye to roads, cars, fossil fuels, abundant electricity, abundant food, inexpensive and easily available medical care and drugs, private property, access to water supply, and suburban sprawl.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been around for a while, waiting to be ratified by the United States. United Nations, through its “Agency,” wants to control mineral and oil exploration, fishing, and passage through oceans and connected waterways. Because they want control and free sharing of any proprietary technology, the treaty has not been ratified.

According to a PJ Media blogger, “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told an Environmental Defense Fund reception in Washington that the role of climate change in national security is one of the environmental considerations that ‘weigh heavily on the Pentagon.” I thought our government’s out of control spending and borrowing have generated such a huge debt that it is the most important threat to our national security.

“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters, all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. I was pointing out the other day that with the polar cap melting, we now have problems with regard to who claims the area in the polar region. And very frankly, one of the things I hope we get a chance to work on is to finally get the United States of America to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been hanging out there for so long.” (Leon Panetta as reported by PJ Media Blogger)

I wonder if he knows that GPS or a compass are very good instruments to determine coordinates whether the ice melts or stays frozen. Is this an excuse as to why we have given seven Alaskan islands with surrounding seabeds rich in oil and minerals to the Russians, against the vehement protests of Alaskans and the state?

The Smart Grid, which turns out to be a potential nightmare in terms of cyber attacks, solar flares, invasion of privacy, and theft of personal data, has brought about the installation of millions of Smart Meters across the U.S. and the globe. People are complaining about adverse health effects, excessive radiation, increased bills despite lower consumption, and invasion of privacy. The only winners in this Smart Grid upgrade that promises to connect all the “patchwork of grids” are the power companies that are being offered huge grants to make the switch and no longer have to worry about building facilities to store electricity for excess capacity during peak usage. They have solved the problem with Smart Meters – they have bribed or forced people to install Smart Meters, thus controlling the flow of electricity and the temperature in our homes – when we least expect it, they cut off power.

Citizens are rebelling and demanding to opt-out in Nevada, California, Oregon, and other states. Nevada approved a $98.75 one-time opt-out charge and monthly fees of $7.61-$11.01 to read traditional meters. They call them non-communicating devices. California Utility Pacific Gas & Electric asked for $270 one-time charge and California Public Utilities Commission approved $75 opt-out fee and $10 monthly charge. Oregon Public Utility Commission approved a $254 one-time opt-out $51 monthly charge for a person to come read the meters. (Jennifer Robison, Review Journal)

If we consider the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which aims to control mineral and oil exploration in oceans and oceanic passage under the United Nations control with its “Agency,” the Biosphere land preserves and corridors, population density controls, rezoning of living areas, moratorium on domestic oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, denial of drilling permits on federal land, huge government land acquisition for wilderness, control of natural gas resources, denial of Keystone pipeline, restricted mobility through decreased usage of fossil fuels as a means of locomotion, and control of ocean fishing, it is evident that globalists want to control every aspect of our lives.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

G-20 Summit Is Not Just a Mexican Vacation

Although Los Cabos, Mexico is a fabulous vacation destination, Americans will pay no attention to the activities of the G-20 Summit there because they do not understand what G-20 members do or care, but they should. Even Congress pays scant attention to this group that was established in 1999.

Rebecca M. Nelson, an analyst in International Trade and Finance, made a wise suggestion in her report, “The G-20 and International Economic Cooperation: Background and Implications for Congress.” (Congressional Research Service, April 12, 2012)

“Congress may want to exercise oversight over the Administration’s participation in the G-20 including the policy commitments that the Administration is making in the G-20 and the policies it is encouraging other G-20 countries to pursue.”

Keeping in line with the idea of legislating retroactively, ex-post facto, the author suggests, “legislative action may be required to implement certain commitments made by the Administration in the G-20 process, and commitments made at the G-20 may shape the congressional legislative agenda.” In other words, unelected bureaucrats with agendas determined by lobbying groups have made promises at previous G-20 meetings. Said bureaucrats may now force legislators to implement their promises into law.

It is true that “policy announcements and commitments that G-20 leaders make at summits are non-binding, and the record of implementing these commitments is wide ranging.” However, bureaucrats were very successful in coordinating fiscal global policies, tripling International Monetary Fund reserves, and establishing the Financial Stability Board to monitor regulatory reforms, pushing us ever closer to total globalization and world governance.

Americans remember G-20 summits as protests against evil capitalism by environmentalists, unions, socialists, anti-war activists, and anarchists. These protests always turn violent at some point, resulting in heavy destruction of private property. Hard-working citizens usually absorb the cost of the anarchists’ right to protest.

It does not occur to the average person that these meetings may make decisions that directly or indirectly affect their pocketbooks such as the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, food security, foreign aid, the environment, giving more taxpayer dollars for various international trade schemes, and more contributions to the IMF to “correct global imbalances.”

The G-20 group was presented as a forum for economic cooperation and coordination. It started with G-5 (France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States) after the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. It then became G-7 with the inclusion of Canada and Italy, and G-8 with the inclusion of Russia. Twelve “emerging economies” were invited to join in 2008, the idea of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and it became G-20. The end goal is to coordinate globalism.

The U.S. bureaucracies involved in the G-20 summits are the Treasury Department (coordinator), the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Energy, the National Security Council, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the supposedly independent Federal Reserve.

During the June 2012 Summit in Los Cabos, discussions will be centered on the Eurozone as a threat to globalism. In terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the European Union produces $18,543 billion of final goods and services, placing it in the number one spot, trailed by U.S. with $15,495 billion, and China with $7,744 billion. Other topics included in discussion are:

-         “Improving the international financial architecture in an interconnected world” (perhaps developing a Marshall Plan for EU nations with U.S. dollars borrowed from China?)

-         “Enhancing food security and addressing commodity price volatility” (does food security involve slaughtering farm-raised pigs in Michigan and fines for growing a garden in your own back yard?)

-         “Promoting sustainable development, green growth, and the fight against climate change” (main focus of United Nations Agenda 21)

-         “Economic stabilization to promote growth and employment” (shovel-ready jobs?)

-         “Fostering financial inclusion” (redistribution of more capitalist wealth to third world nations?)

Since global warming has been debunked, the bureaucrats and environmentalists have changed their tactics and terminology to “climate change” and are forging ahead with their plans to fundamentally change the way we do business, trade, live, eat, breathe, and exist in general. We have to pay the “green piper” if we want to live on their new and improved, socially just, environmentally just, green-growth planet.