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.
http://www.cyberears.com/cybrss/16088.mp3
My view of the world through personal experience, 30 years of teaching Economics and Foreign Languages, travel in Europe and North America, research, and living 20 years under communism.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
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.
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-24-12.mp3
I come on in the second hour.
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-24-12.mp3
Friday Radio Chat with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas
My Friday chat with Silvio Canto Jr. on national, Cuban, and European issues.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2012/05/25/our-friday-chat-with-dr-ileana-johnson-paugh
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2012/05/25/our-friday-chat-with-dr-ileana-johnson-paugh
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.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Blogtalk Radio weekly Friday Talks on Europe and U.S.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2012/05/18/our-friday-chat-with-dr-ileana-johnson-paugh
Radio commentary with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas.
Topics: situation in Europe and the U.S.
Radio commentary with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas.
Topics: situation in Europe and the U.S.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Second radio hour with Maggie on Friday
Second radio hour with Maggie. Topics: Rio +20, Club of Rome, and children crossing the border alone from Central America into the United States.
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-11-12.mp3
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-11-12.mp3
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Radio Interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi and Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Dr. Corsi is interviewed in the first hour. Dr. Paugh in the second hour.http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-10-12.mp3
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.
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.
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 cafés 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
The Unsolicitied Opinion - Republic Broadcasting Network May 3, 2012
Thursday Radio chat with Maggie Roddin on Republic Broadcasting Network. G-20 and other topics. I come on in the second hour.
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-03-12.mp3
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-05-03-12.mp3
Friday Radio Chat with Silvio Canto from Dallas
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2012/05/04/our-friday-chat-with-dr-ileana-johnson-paugh
My Friday radio chat with Silvio Canto on Blog Talk Radio: job report, executive orders, U.S. economy, and many other interesting topics.
My Friday radio chat with Silvio Canto on Blog Talk Radio: job report, executive orders, U.S. economy, and many other interesting topics.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
(nationalacademies.org/podcast/20101130.mp3)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)