The Paris climate conference focused on fear, not climate reality

Commentary by James Shott

The Paris climate conference is now over. The Christian Science Monitor reported on Saturday that the rap of the chairman’s gavel “signaled unanimous – if not unanimously enthusiastic – support from all parties engaged in this year's UN climate talks. It comes at the end of a year scientists say will likely be the hottest ever on record.”

After all the time involved and the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced getting the hundreds of representatives from 196 nations all in the same place, and then back home again, the agreement does not put the world on a path toward what scientists regard as a safe level of global warming, but the agreement sets forth a clear path for countries to identify their own targets for CO2 reduction. Ultimately, participants want a global carbon-free environment by 2060, at the latest, meaning that every car, building, plane, ship, train, and power plant would have to operate without burning any fossil fuels.

Days prior to the closing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon told the ministerial session, “The clock is ticking toward climate disaster,” and former Vice-President Al Gore compared the need to combat climate change to the abolition of slavery, giving women the right to vote and the civil rights battle. Gore said, “The right choice is to safeguard the future for the next generation and for the generations to come.”

There were scary stories of rising sea levels, causing residents of low-lying areas like the Marshall Islands to lobby strenuously for the agreement, while droughts, flooding, and other extreme weather events were predicted to increase elsewhere on the planet if CO2 emissions aren’t reigned in. And to make sure to attract the attention of enough third world countries, billions of dollars in support for affected economies is on the table, supposedly to be paid by the rich countries, like the United States.

The whole world is concerned because of the idea that too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophes sometime in the distant future. Carbon dioxide is what plants that produce oxygen for us to breath live on.

All of this scare mongering tended to overshadow the dismal record of climate predictions and data manipulations from the not-so-distant past that casts doubt on the need for turning the energy universe upside-down. Here are some of the scary predictions of global warming catastrophes that did not come true:

* By 1980 all of the important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
* By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.
* The world will be eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.
* By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by half.
* A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.
* Within a few years children just aren't going to know what snow is.

Add to those failed prognostications a global warming hiatus for at least16 years, according to the British Met Office, and energetic disagreement about man-caused climate change among climate scientists, and the agreement looks like a gigantic global shakedown.

As an example, while Barack Obama is busy regulating America’s coal-fired electricity generating plants out of existence, China is constructing new plants. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris, we should be wary of China’s commitment to reduce emissions. China is by far the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is currently constructing 350 coal-fired power plants and has plans to build another 800.

The Wall Street Journal notes, “In 2013 China burned 3.9 billion tons of coal, almost as much as the rest of the world.” Obama seems to think that harming the U.S. economy by shutting down U.S. fossil fuel-burning facilities will negate China’s feverish coal-burning economy. Loris asks pointedly, “This is the country that we’re going to trust to peak emissions 15 years from now?” 

And trust is the operative word: all countries are on scouts honor to do what they have said they will do, without official oversight or penalties.

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013 “Historical Data Workbook,” 87 percent of the energy mankind uses every second comes from burning fossil fuels.

People who live in cold climates use them to warm their homes, and people who live in warm climates use them to cool their homes. Fossil fuels are used to plant and harvest crops that feed people, and are used to transport food from places where food is produced to places where it is needed and wanted. They are used to light the darkness, to entertain us, transport us, diagnose disease, communicate with each other, mass-produce products we need and want, and to provide security in our homes and for the nation.

Fossil fuel use has improved the lives of millions of people worldwide, and millions more can benefit from it. There are no replacement technologies that even approach filling the void Obama and the other climate change advocates are creating. We are on course for a disaster.

Cross-posted from Observations

Obama pushing for a new United Nations climate agreement

Commentary by James Shott

The United Nations has scheduled a meeting in Paris to discuss climate change, with a new international global warming agreement involving more than 190 countries as its goal. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, starting November 30 and running to December 11, will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The objective is to create a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, and the Obama administration has submitted a plan for a new deal consisting of national contributions to curb emissions that would alter the 20-year-old Kyoto Protocol distinctions between the obligations of rich and poor nations.

The U.S. plan depends on individual countries enforcing their own emissions reductions, and the countries that agree to the plan would be required to set new targets to lower their carbon emissions after 2020. And rich nations like the U.S. and Japan will be held to the same legal requirements as China, India and other fast-developing nations.

This all sounds wonderful, if you believe in manmade global warming/climate change; one-world government; the US making more reductions before China and India – the really big polluters – do; and the Easter Bunny.

Why would China or India voluntarily reduce their emissions when doing so would stop their development or severely hamper it? And, can the world trust both countries to honestly report their emissions? Just recently, The Guardian published evidence that China has already been deceiving the world on its coal burning carbon emissions, even before this new agreement is finalized.

At a meeting in Bonn last month to discuss a draft agreement a bitter fight developed over the degree to which countries of the world should cut their greenhouse gas emissions, how much time they will have to complete those cuts, and who will pay for the transition.

Some provisions of the draft require the complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050, and that rich countries like the U.S. get to pay more than $100 billion per year after 2020 to compensate poor countries for supposed climate change damages and help them adopt non-carbon producing energy sources.

The basis for this stepped up attack on fossil fuel use is the old story that human activities cause climate change, and global warming is responsible for so much harm, like Al Gore’s shrinking Arctic ice cap that was supposed to disappear by 2014 (the Arctic still has a large ice cap and the Antarctic cap has grown), rising global temperatures (that haven’t risen since 1998 in the U.S.), too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which makes plants grow and produce oxygen for us to breathe) and the rest of the more than 700 things attributed to global warming, as compiled by the British-based science watchdog, Number Watch.

California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee and several other Democrats believe that if substantial reductions in CO2 emissions aren’t made soon then droughts and reduced agricultural output may force women to turn to “transactional sex” (once known as “prostitution”) to survive. Seriously.

A consortium of environmental activist organizations released a report titled “Fair Shares” which concludes: “Nothing less than a systemic transformation of our societies and our economies will suffice to solve the climate crisis."

Since President Barack Obama is totally on board with this concept he has already implemented his own “climate action plan.” Thus, the theory goes, the U.S. would not need congressional approval to implement the U.N. agreement, since it’s already being done through executive orders. 

Which, of course, means that Obama intends to ignore the constitutional role of Congress. Again.

“So this is just the latest example of President Obama’s contempt for obeying the Constitution and our laws,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “In the past, rulers who act as if the law does not apply to them were called tyrants,” he noted.

The U.S. Constitution says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” to make treaties with other countries. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol had to be ratified by Congress, but it never was, even though the Clinton administration signed onto it. This agreement, too, is a treaty, and it requires Senate approval.

“CEI has warned for several years that the Obama Administration would follow advice from environmental pressure groups and try to sign a new U.N. agreement that ignores the Senate’s constitutional role,” Ebell said.

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee called the plan ambitious and cynical because it “is an attempt to enshrine in an international agreement President Obama’s unilateral environmental regulatory regime, which remains deeply unpopular among the American people.”

Opponents also point out that this agreement will not take effect until after Obama leaves office, so he won’t have to deal with the damage it causes. However, if it does not receive ratification by the Senate making it a treaty, it is only an agreement, and therefore can easily be cancelled by the new president.

Cross-posted from Observations

Potpourri: Environmentalism, Obamacare and high school seniors

United Nations environmental figure reveals new goal

Its enemies dislike capitalism in great part because it is based, generally, upon people doing what they want when they want to, and the United States, even with this current infection of liberalism/progressivism, stands as a grand tribute to the blessings of capitalism. For some 150 years the United States’ capitalist economy has achieved what other nations and economic models dreamed of and promised, but never came close to.

Monarchs, dictators and other leaders dislike capitalist liberties, preferring to limit the freedom of their subjects. They are much easier to control that way. But that control produces harmful limitations.

Environmentalism is a great enemy of capitalism, not because of its ultimate goal so much as its irrational methodology, which has done so much damage to our nation.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made an interesting admission, at a news conference last week in Brussels. She said that the goal of her convention is not to save the world from ecological calamity. That goal is instead to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said, as reported by Investors Business Daily.

Bloomberg News, reporting on comments made by Ms. Figueres in an interview, wrote that China, in contrast to the U.S., is able to implement policies “because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles” other countries have. Or in other words, “Damn those freedom-loving capitalists!”

Environmentalists hope that a new international treaty will be approved at the climate change conference in Paris later this year. Environmental goals will be much easier to achieve if all nations sign on to the U.N. plan and agree to beat their citizen-subjects into submission, no matter how much unnecessary pain and suffering that entails.

It should be clear why the United Nations wants to kill capitalism, since that is the source of America’s ability to resist that power-hungry organization’s efforts to become a world government.

The U.S. needs to abandon the United Nations.

Obamacare co-ops going broke

Writing for The Daily Signal online, Melissa Quinn reported that after receiving $2.5 billion from the federal government, most of the 23 nonprofit insurance companies created under the Affordable Care Act are going broke. If they have to shut their doors, taxpayers will be responsible for an average of roughly $108 million for each of them.

The Daily Signal reported that leading insurance rating firm A.M. Best found that all but one of the co-ops experienced operating losses through September 2014. “A.M. Best is concerned about the financial viability of several of these plans,” the report states. The exception is Maine Community Health Options, which received $132.3 million from the government.

State requires students to pass citizenship test to graduate

Here’s an idea that deserves to be copied by the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a law into effect last week that requires high school students to pass the same test immigrants must pass to become citizens in order to graduate, the first such law.

“Why is such a requirement thought to be necessary?” you may ask. Is there a rationale for why existing Americans should know less about their country than immigrants wanting to become Americans?

Consider that a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2011 found that “just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on “American Idol.” Only 13 percent knew the U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. And just 38 percent were able to name all three branches of government.”

To pass, students would have to correctly answer just 60 of 100 questions. Here are some examples:

·      How many amendments does the U.S. Constitution have?

·      If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

                  To provide schooling and education

                  To issue driver's licenses

                  To make treaties

                  To build roads

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

·      Who was president during World War I?

The sponsoring organization, Civics Education Initiative, hopes all 50 states will be mandating the test by the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 2017.

Now the government wants to control the Internet

The Internet is one of the most successful modern creations, but whenever something is successful, the control freaks in Washington get all excited.

Under a scheme referred to as “Net Neutrality,” the Internet will be declared a “public utility” and the FCC then gets to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. Less freedom; higher costs: What’s to like about this? Let your Congressional Representative and Senators know you oppose Net Neutrality before the vote scheduled for February 26.

NIPCC report disputes the conventional wisdom about climate change

Commentary by James H. Shott

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a panel of scientists organized in 2003 by Dr. S. Fred Singer and the Science & Environmental Policy Project. Unlike the better-known Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a government-sponsored and politically motivated group with a man-causes-global-warming bias, the NIPCC receives no funding from government and does not share the IPCC’s predisposition that climate change is man-made and therefore requires a United Nations solution.

Hence, Dr. Singer’s group, which consists of some 50 independent scientists from universities and private institutions around the world (the US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Norway, Canada, Italy, the UK, France, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Spain) who disagree with the IPCC’s theory, “seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda,” according to a summary of the 1,200-page report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” that was released in September of this year.

Most of what we read, see and hear from the media is the opinion held and promoted by the United Nations’ IPCC. No matter what your opinion about whether or not human activities have a significant effect, or any effect, on the Earth’s climate, it certainly cannot hurt to have available the analysis of a group of scientists – the NIPCC – that believes the data show a different reality than that promoted by the IPCC.

Among the group’s findings are:

•    Atmospheric CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.

•    Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 emissions, which represents 34 percent of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

•    The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

•    The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities.

•    CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere “greens” the planet and helps feed the growing human population.

•    No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation.

•    The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

The summary also presents key facts about surface temperature that argue against the UN IPCC’s position, a few of which follow:

•    Whether today’s global surface temperature is seen to be part of a warming trend depends upon the time period considered.

•    Over (climatic) time scales of many thousand years, temperature is cooling; over the historical (meteorological) time scale of the past century temperature has warmed. Over the past 16 years, there has been no net warming despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8 percent. (See second bullet above.)

•    There was nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late twentieth century warming pulses represented on the HadCRUT record, both falling well within the envelope of known, previous natural variations.

•    No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2 degrees Centigrade would be net ecologically or economically damaging.

These findings by this group of international scientists that contradict the positions of the IPCC gain strength from the evidence of fraud among scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, many associated with the IPCC. Emails exchanged between these scientists obtained in 2009 demonstrated fraud, dishonesty and errors in the arguments supporting the theory of man-made global warming.

As reported in Human Events online edition, some of the emails revealed contempt for disagreeable scientific data and a “slavish devotion to the climate change political agenda pushed by the politicians and government bureaucrats funding their research.”

In the report’s Conclusion the authors say: “Few scientists deny that human activities can have an effect on local climate or that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability?”

The Conclusion includes a quote by British biologist Conrad Waddington from 1941: “It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to the true, or what one may hope to be true.”

Those scientists who believe that man’s activities harm the planet should take this good advice to heart.



Cross-posted from Observations

Proposed "Green Annex" to the US Army Operations Order

Now that West Point has created Energy and Environmental Officers (or "E2Os"), it is time to introduce an Annex to the US Army Operations Order that addresses climate change, sustainable development, and other green issues during the conduct of military operations.  Here is my proposed "Annex W: Sustainable Development" to be completed by the Green Officer on the unit's staff (this is satire):

This is a hypothetical document and not an approved change to FM 5-0. It is being used to demonstrate the potential future of military operations under United Nations’ Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development related policies.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

What is Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a mechanism by which nations can "legitimately" centralize control of all resources (including people) in their nations in the name of combatting "man-made climate change."  It is a tool provided to them by the United Nations, an organization which will ultimately benefit from all worldly resources once they are collectivized on a global scale.

Agenda 21 is designed to dupe people into believing that this centralization of control (and their commensurate loss of control over their own lives and property) is necessary to save the planet.  It is a lie.

So people will either voluntarily give up their freedoms to "save the planet," or the government will use "saving the planet" as the excuse to take freedoms away from the people.

Collectivization in each nation is the first step.  Collectivization on a global government will be the next step.

In the process of all of this, the national leaders are protected and enriched, being part of the club of self-serving leaders called the United Nations.  Those leaders do not represent their people, they subjugate their people.  Agenda 21 is a means to the end of enslaving humans under a One World Government.

Agenda 21 and all schemes from the United Nations must be resisted.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

United Nations Seeks Global Tax

In the following video, Neil Cavuto interviews former UK Parliament member John Browne on the European Union, United Nations, and a One World Government.  John Brown moved to the United States and became an American citizen to flee the loss of liberty in his home country.

Some (rough) quotes from John Browne:
"That's what they want--World Government.  There's no escape."
"The EU is a pilot scheme for the United Nations and world government."

We must resist any taxation whatsoever from the United Nations.  Frankly, we must look at anything the United Nations proposes or does with heavy skepticism, and reject most, if not all, of it.  We should also forbid the Federal Reserve from giving any money directly to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank.

--Against All Enemies

Link to Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpbq3Y8ONEQ&feature=player_embedded

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Appeasement and Betrayal

By outlawing the criticism of Muhammad, a man who lived over a thousand years ago, and his ideology, Islam, we are appeasing the followers of that ideology and contributing to our own destruction.

In the 1930's, the world feared Adolf Hitler and appeased him by giving up land.  They thought this would satisfy him and bring peace to Europe.  They were wrong.  By giving in to his demands, they were only emboldening him and feeding his evil desires.

Now we are faced with a similar evil, but this time it is manifesting itself as an ideology wrapped in a religion that must be respected.  To appease its ravenous desires, we are not sacrificing land, however.  We are sacrificing our liberties, which is much more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous.

The first liberty we are sacrificing is our Freedom of Speech.  Laws are now in the works, most notably at the United Nations, that will forbid the insulting of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.  Should we ratify any such law, it will become Islam's point of penetration into the very fabric of our society, tearing past the defenses established by our Constitution and allowing Islamic ideology to attack all our institutions with relative impunity.

You see, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, established by their prophet, which dictates all aspects of life and government.  Should you criticize the ideology, you are ultimately criticizing Muhammad.  Thus their ideology will be beyond reproach, and will slowly and steadily destroy the institutions of freedom we hold so dear.  It will be the loss of our ability to speak out against it that will seal our doom.

Considering these proposed blasphemy laws, what if you are found guilty of criticizing Muhammad or his ideology?  What then?  Will it be a fine?  Will it be imprisonment?  Or will it be your beheading, as devout Muslims so vocally demand?

Do you see where this is going?  This is a means to an end to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.  It will begin with the loss of our voice, our ability to acknowledge, speak out against, and resist this evil.  It will be given a free pass in our nation to trample us underfoot...unopposed.

I will not defend the content of the movie "Innocence of Muslims," nor the way that it was presented.  But I will defend that individual's right under the First Amendment of our Constitution to say what he did.  Just as I will the individual who created the "Piss Christ."  Do I like either one--no.  But, should an individual be forbidden to express such things, what is to stop someone from forbidding me to speak my mind?  This, my friend, is the road to tyranny.

If our government is given the authority to determine which speech is allowed and which is forbidden, then they can outlaw dissent against the government.  Should this occur, we will all suffer under the tyranny that has risen within our borders.

--Against All Enemies

AAE blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Previous Posts on Agenda 21

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio+20, commences on Wednesday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  In celebration of this magnificent event that demonstrates how the rest of the world can come together to solve human-made "problems" without preserving our freedoms, I am listing my previous posts on the matter for your reference.  Since you probably do not have the time to look at every post, I have indicated the most important posts with an asterisk (*).

SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 2012

Australia Has Wrapped Itself in Agenda 21

*Senior Military Leaders Oppose LOST

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012

OMG! Earth is headed toward tipping point!

*Agenda 21: Target America

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012

Alabama Stands Against Agenda 21

SUNDAY, JUNE 10, 2012

*The United Nations and the One World Government

Farmers Plead to Use Water from own Wells

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2012

MUST READ: Ron Taylor's "Agenda 21"

SUNDAY, JUNE 3, 2012

*UN Rio Earth Summit 1992

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012

Open Season on Agenda 21

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

*Lord Monkton on Agenda 21

SATURDAY, MAY 5, 2012

UN: US Should Return Lands to Native Americans

SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2012

DHS Environmental Justice Strategy

SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 2012

*Deciphering the "Green" Economy

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2012

City of Colfax, California, Rejects UN Agenda 21

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012

*Romney's Global Warming Plan (Analysis)

SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2012

TN House Passes Anti-UN Agenda 21 Resolution

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012

*Globalization Causes Next Major War

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

*The Desire for One World Government

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The United Nations and the One World Government

When the world is viewed through the lens of traditional nation-state behavior, very little seems to make sense these days.  For example, why is the world so enraptured with "global warming" and "climate change," two problems based on specious evidence?  Why is Islam, the most intolerant and violent ideology on the planet, being actively assisted by the world community to acquire more power?  Why is Christianity under direct and ever-increasing assault in America?  Why are the forces of the United States and its Allies being employed in ways that are not in their best national interest?

I have come to the conclusion that what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to bring humanity under the control of a One World Government.  Its creation would be a fitting historical bookend to Nimrod's construction of the Tower of Babel during another time when humans rebelled against God, rejected His Word, and sought to do things their way.  Today, we increasingly see a rejection of God's Word for an increasing reliance on ourselves to achieve our own salvation.  This will only end in destruction, and could possibly be leading to the End of Times as relayed to us in the Book of Revelations.

The Tower of Babel
(Please reference Genesis 9:1-17 and 11:1-9)

In the days after the Flood, the Lord instructed Noah and his descendants to "Be fruitful and multiply.  Fill the earth."  (Genesis 9:1)  The Lord also established a covenant with humans promising that he would never again destroy mankind with a flood, placing his signature in the sky as a rainbow to forever remind us of this covenant.  

However, humans under the reign of Nimrod in the area of Babylon refused to scatter and fill the earth, instead seeking to remain where they were and build a tower so that they would make themselves "famous" and prevent their scattering--all in direct opposition to the will of God.  Jewish tradition as relayed by Josephus also describes that through his “leadership” Nimrod turned the people away from God by creating in them the fear of a non-existent problem--that God would flood the world again, even though God made a covenant with humans that he would not.  Therefore, the people had to trust in Nimrod and the construction of a tall, water-tight tower to protect them from God's wrath.  By creating this fear and turning the people from God, he was able to create what was perhaps the very first tyrannical government after the Flood.

Similarly today, we see fear of a non-existent problem being stirred up in humans--the fear of a global catastrophe brought on by "climate change.”  Because humans the world over stand accused of creating the climate change that will bring disaster to our entire planet, this situation will require a world-wide government to control the behavior of all humans in order to stave off our impending doom.  And thus we see the return of the “Tower of Babel” in another device used to frighten humanity into voluntarily accepting its submission to human tyranny in the form of a One World Government.

Mechanism for Control

So at this point let us assume that the establishment of a One World Government is already underway.  For a government, especially a tyrannical one, to function properly, it needs a mechanism to control its subjects that is appropriate to the scope of its duties and the size of the population it seeks to dominate.  As evidenced within “Agenda 21” planning, the One World Government seeks nothing less than total control of humanity.  However, the human population is enormous and growing, so one must subdivide the population into more manageable groupings and work to reverse the growth trend and actively seek its decline. 

Regional Groups

To attempt to control every independent nation of the world from a central point would be extremely difficult, for the span of control would be too great.  It would be much easier to rule a structure that consisted of a hierarchy of national groupings.  If you examine “Agenda 21” planning, they seek to force their ideas on individual nations through the use of intermediate, unelected regional organizations.  

We see evidence of this regionalization in the existence of organizations like NATO, the African Union, the European Union (EU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the theoretical (for now) North American Union.  If you consolidate the maps of all these regional organizations, the resultant map would cover almost the entire world, laying down a layer of intermediate control for the One World Government.

World Military Force

For a One World Government to enforce compliance with its polices and wield power, it must be able to employ military force.  When we examine the United Nations, it does not have a military force of its own, but must rely on member states to take military action on their behalf.  So if the UN is indeed in the process of increasingly consolidating power over the world unto itself, it will be seeking to have more control over the use of military force.

As centralized control increases, the use of unilateral military action to protect the critical interests of only one nation will be condemned.  Instead, action must be taken as a collective to force nations to submit to the will of the One World Government.  For instance, the actions of NATO in Afghanistan, Libya and potentially Syria, and African Union actions on their continent could each be argued as being conducted on behalf of the world body.

When you look at these operations, they are not always in the critical national interests of the states taking military action.  The actions in Libya and potentially Syria are being done with the purpose of deposing Arab autocrats and smoothing the way for the control of the Muslim Brotherhood and the eventual establishment of a Caliphate (to be further discussed in the next section).  So when you see military actions that do not clearly support national security, then perhaps that military force is being employed for the benefit of the United Nations for the maintenance of order within, and the expansion of, their system of global governance.

Islamic Ideology

The Islamic ideology is a curious element within the design of a One World Government, for it actually has the potential to greatly enhance that system.  This enhancement can be done in two ways: (1) the One World Government completely adopts the ideology as a control mechanism, or (2) uses the intolerance and inherent violence of the ideology to instill fear in the rest of the world who needs to rely on the One World Government to maintain order and provide protection.

I will begin with the characteristics of Islam that may lead the One World Government to choose it as the global ideology of control.  First, Islam is designed to be a perfect mechanism for the tyrannical control of humans.  Second, it has its own language (Arabic) intimately tied to it so that can potentially be used as a single world language.  Third, the followers of Islam are instructed to die for their ideology, which provides a ready source of “soldiers” and a useful tool to maintain control over the populations of the world.  Fourth, Islam teaches its followers to slay, convert, or subdue all non-Muslims over the whole planet, which reinforces point three.  Fifth, the followers of Islam are required to submit totally to the ideology.  What more would a One World Government need in an ideology to establish complete dominance?

The threat posed by the violence and intolerance of Islam gives the One World Government a second option to propagate fear amongst the world populations.  The World Government would then be called upon to impose peace and order on the world to prevent open warfare.  The only problem with this option is that the World Government would have to choose between defeating the ideology or forcing the rest of the world to tolerate it.   Based on this, I believe the World Government will adopt Islam as the ideology of world control.

America Must Submit (Or Be Destroyed)

America is the largest impediment to the creation of the One World Government.  First, it is currently the global superpower and enjoys its power.  Second, its citizenry are blessed with a number of freedoms that they will not freely surrender. Unfortunately, these freedoms are in opposition to the very nature of a world-wide control structure that would purposely not answer to the people of any nation.  Therefore, America must be forced to submit to the One World Government or face destruction.

Our belief in the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness given to us by our Creator retard any attempt to establish a One World Government.  Our freedoms of speech and religion, and our right to bear arms, must be eliminated to properly impose a One World Government on the American people.  Our belief in hard work, being rewarded for that work, and then being able to enjoy the fruits of our labor does not fit a one world construct.  Our belief in and trust of the God of the Bible immediately creates a natural distrust and disapproval of even the idea of a One World Government (as you are witnessing here in these words).  Thus you see the deliberate attacks on Christianity to destroy these beliefs.  At the end of the day, if we do not surrender our freedoms voluntarily, the world must destroy us.

The enormous national debt, which appears to be growing exponentially, is a ticking time bomb that, when it explodes, could pull the rug out from under the strength of America.  Agenda 21 is attempting to force America to put the brakes on its free-market capitalism by voluntarily limiting its use of natural resources and  submitting to a One World Government-imposed set of irrational restrictions to combat a non-existent problem (climate change).  Islam is another weapon which can be employed to conduct attacks within America (up to and including nuclear attacks) and facilitate internal collapse.

Israel Must Be Destroyed

By its very nature, the establishment of a One World Government is human rebellion against the God of the Bible.   As the Chosen People of the Living God, Israel must be destroyed because their very existence is an insult to the human One World Government and its faith in human brilliance instead of God’s.  Today we are witnessing the forces that will be used in an attempt to destroy Israel being marshaled.  Once again, Islam provides the One World Government with a useful tool since the Islamic ideology demands the elimination of the Jewish people.  Therefore, Islam will be the primary mechanism used to effect the destruction of Israel.

Conclusion: Resist Tyranny

In my opinion, it is very likely that we are seeing the end of history approaching.  The establishment of a One World Government under the control of humans, and its inevitable failure, will be the final proof that we as humans do not know better than God, and that He is the One in charge of history.
Perhaps I am giving these folks and the idea of the creation of a One World Government too much credit, but I would rather assume the worst case than hope that the problem goes away on its own. 
With that being said, we must resist the establishment of a government that at its very core rejects God and His will.  We must resist a government that denies us our right to determine our own course, our right to have our own elected officials who are answerable to the people and no one else, and the right to enjoy our freedoms.  The One World Government seeks to rob us of these.  The One World Government is our enemy.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department. 

Syria: The "Atrocities" Excuse to Violate National Sovereignty

The escalating "atrocities" in Syria could end up triggering a military intervention, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Fox News on Monday -- following the massacre that left more than 100 dead.  (FoxNews article)

International efforts to pressure Syria intensified on Monday, as the United Nations special envoy Kofi Annan began negotiations in the capital, Damascus, and the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that continued atrocities could make military intervention more likely.  (New York Times article)

Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States....America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.  (PSD-10 Mass Atrocities)

Employing our military in support of the UN's Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) Doctrine is not in our national interest and is not the proper use of our military.  In no way do the killings (or "atrocities") in Syria have anything to do with the United States of America.  Certainly we do not like Assad for his support of Hezbollah and Iran, but he has not directly threatened or attacked our nation.  We cannot use "atrocities" as an excuse to depose him or any other ruler that we do not like.  In short, accusations of "atrocities" are a method to legitimate the violation of another nation's sovereignty in order to overthrow a government that does not support the goals of the US and/or the UN.

Should we choose to conduct military operations (war) in Syria, either as a result of a UN Resolution or Article V of the NATO (Washington) Treaty, other nations will not view it as a legitimate use of force.  Russia will most likely be one of them, and may seek to catastrophically reduce our powers as they will perceive the US as being an unconstrained threat to their national interests abroad.  China could be another.  Iran will certainly look to retaliate should they lose their key ally on the Mediterranean.  Military intervention in Syria could set off a catastrophic chain of events.

Deposing Assad would also result in another domino falling to the Muslim Brotherhood and another step toward the creation of a Sunni Caliphate.  Neither side in Syria are friends of ours, and it is in our best interest to let them continue fighting each other.

This Memorial Day, we as Americans must ensure that our service members give their lives in defense of the Constitution and the people of the United States, and not in the pursuit of some specious crusade against a people who do not pose a direct threat to us.  Their job is not to bring order to the world on behalf of the United Nations and its attainment of a disturbed vision of worldwide control.  Not a single American need die in a war against Syria for committing "atrocities" against its own people.

Here is a partial timeline that lays out how the Executive Branch of the United States Government has been actively adopting and institutionalizing the United Nation's "Responsibility to Protect" as our own foreign policy:

• May 27, 2012         "Massacre" of civilians in Houla provides the UN with an excuse to legitimate military intervention under the "RtoP Doctrine" (The Australian article)
• April 23, 2012       President Obama pledges to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities (exploiting the Holocaust to justify the use of force against any nation accused of committing "atrocities"; source)
• August 4, 2011      Presidential Study Directive 10 (PSD-10) on Mass Atrocities Issued
• Early 2011             NATO employs lethal force to "protect" Libyan civilians
• January 30, 2009   Ban Ki-moon issued a report on "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect" (more info)
• September 15, 2005   UN Introduces the "Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (items 138-140) in the UN General Assembly (document link)

Where is the United States Congress in all of this?  The Executive Branch is clearly telegraphing its intention to use military force in Syria.  Congress needs to say "no."

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.