By: as Dawn sees it
Yet another grand decision by this administration, in which the United States Congress has had no say, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The treaty is known as “the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, and the nations that are reported to be involved in the development of this treaty include the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia. Opponents of this treaty refer to it as “the NAFTA of the Pacific”, and if it is enacted it will push the deindustrialization of America into overdrive.
The “one world” economic agenda that Barack Obama has been pushing is absolutely killing the U.S. economy. As you will see later in this article, we are losing jobs and businesses at an astounding pace. And each new “free trade” agreement makes things even worse.
Their goal is to conclude talks by the end of this year. To be clear, this is not about helping business and industry in this country. As with everything this administration has done it is about “leveling the playing field,” and not only here in the US, but globally. It is about global redistribution of wealth, which does not mean bringing other countries up to our standards. It means bringing our standards down, all in the name of equality.
This is what needs to be understood when reading the United Nations’ Agenda 21 publication. It is a way of allegedly “improving conditions” in developing countries, which threatens to bring us down to levels we have never really experienced before. In the excerpt below, from the Agenda 21 publication, see the repeated mention of “developing countries.”
Agenda 21 – Chapter 34
TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY,
COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING
34.14. The following objectives are proposed:
a. To help to ensure the access, in particular of developing countries, to scientific and technological information, including information on state-of-the-art technologies;
b. To promote, facilitate, and finance, as appropriate, the access to and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and corresponding know-how, in particular to developing countries, on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed, taking into account the need to protect intellectual property rights as well as the special needs of developing countries for the implementation of Agenda 21;
c. To facilitate the maintenance and promotion of environmentally sound indigenous technologies that may have been neglected or displaced, in particular in developing countries, paying particular attention to their priority needs and taking into account the complementary roles of men and women;
d. To support endogenous capacity-building, in particular in developing countries, so they can assess, adopt, manage and apply environmentally sound technologies. This could be achieved through inter alia:
i. Human resource development;
ii. Strengthening of institutional capacities for research and development and programme implementation;
iii. Integrated sector assessments of technology needs, in accordance with countries’plans, objectives and priorities as foreseen in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level;
iv. To promote long-term technological partnerships between holders of environmentally sound technologies and potential users
(a) Development of international information networks which link national, subregional, regional and international systems
34.15. Existing national, subregional, regional and international information systems should be developed and linked through regional clearing-houses covering broad-based sectors of the economy such as agriculture, industry and energy. Such a network might, inter alia, include national, subregional and regional patent offices that are equipped to produce reports on state-of-the-art technology. The clearing-house networks would disseminate information on available technologies, their sources, their environmental risks, and the broad terms under which they may be acquired. They would operate on an information-demand basis and focus on the information needs of the end-users. They would take into account the positive roles and contributions of international, regional and subregional organizations, business communities, trade associations, non-governmental organizations, national Governments, and newly established or strengthened national networks.
Also see the source material of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD):
Established in 1964, UNCTAD promotes the development-friendly integration of developing countries into the world economy. UNCTAD has progressively evolved into an authoritative knowledge-based institution whose work aims to help shape current policy debates and thinking on development, with a particular focus on ensuring that domestic policies and international action are mutually supportive in bringing about sustainable development.
Now we move on to the latest executive order, and how it ties into redistribution of wealth, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.” Think about just the idea of issuing an executive order based on the climate changing and how ridiculous that actually sounds. As if the climate has never changed before? Those who have been conditioned to accept the “Green Agenda” and the untruths of man-made global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, or whatever phrase fits a particular moment in time, will think nothing of this EO. Of course, as with just about everything we see being done by the Obama administration and those behind and surrounding it, there is an ulterior motive, that motive being redistributing wealth, allegedly to developing countries.
See this dictatorial executive order (excerpt):
Sec. 2. Modernizing Federal Programs to Support Climate Resilient Investment. (a) To support the efforts of regions, States, local communities, and tribes, all agencies, consistent with their missions and in coordination with the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Council) established in section 6 of this order, shall:
(i) identify and seek to remove or reform barriers that discourage investments or other actions to increase the Nation’s resilience to climate change while ensuring continued protection of public health and the environment;
(ii) reform policies and Federal funding programs that may, perhaps unintentionally, increase the vulnerability of natural or built systems, economic sectors, natural resources, or communities to climate change related risks;
(iii) identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, including by providing incentives through agency guidance, grants, technical assistance, performance measures, safety considerations, and other programs, including in the context of infrastructure development as reflected in Executive Order 12893 of January 26, 1994 (Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments), my memorandum of August 31, 2011 (Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review), Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects), and my memorandum of May 17, 2013 (Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures); and [continues]
And for more about climate-resilient “investment”:
The Climate Investment Funds are made up of four funding windows to help developing countries pilot low-emissions and climate-resilient development. With CIF support, 48 countries are piloting transformations in clean technology, sustainable management of forests, renewable energy access, and climate resilient development. An additional five countries have been facilitated by the CIF to prepare investment plans for climate programs.
Keep in mind the failure of the “Green Energy Projects,” not to mention the ten billion dollars of taxpayer money wasted on these projects. Knowing what we do so far about how developing countries are already struggling, there would be no way that they would be able to fund green energy projects.
Being the most successfully industrialized nation, our wealth needs to be distributed to the “developing” countries, of course, under the guise of saving the planet. That is generally what global “communitarians” believe.
When the rich countries refused, the group decided “the only hope for the planet” was for the industrialized civilizations to collapse. He pondered, “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
Again, from Agenda 21 (emphasis added):
A. Focusing on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption
Basis for action
4.3. Poverty and environmental degradation are closely interrelated. While poverty results in certain kinds of environmental stress, the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries, which is a matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances.
4.4. Measures to be undertaken at the international level for the protection and enhancement of the environment must take fully into account the current imbalances in the global patterns of consumption and production.
4.5. Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by unsustainable consumption and to the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal of minimizing depletion and reducing pollution. Although consumption patterns are very high in certain parts of the world, the basic consumer needs of a large section of humanity are not being met. This results in excessive demands and unsustainable lifestyles among the richer segments, which place immense stress on the environment. The poorer segments, meanwhile, are unable to meet food, health care, shelter and educational needs. Changing consumption patterns will require a multipronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basic needs of the poor, and reducing wastage and the use of finite resources in the production process.
4.6. Growing recognition of the importance of addressing consumption has also not yet been matched by an understanding of its implications. Some economists are questioning traditional concepts of economic growth and underlining the importance of pursuing economic objectives that take account of the full value of natural resource capital. More needs to be known about the role of consumption in relation to economic growth and population dynamics in order to formulate coherent international and national policies.
Now you may be asking how does one go about doing this? That is where Cap and Trade comes in. Let us look at what the EPA has to say about Cap and Trade. That is the same EPA which in the past has admitted they are also very involved in helping this administration issue executive orders, the same EPA that pushes farther and farther down the path of regulating the small business owner right out of business.
Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.
Examples of successful cap and trade programs include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast. Additionally, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on March 10, 2005, to build on the success of these programs and achieve significant additional emission reductions.
Since we are considered an industrialized nation, we are obviously going to produce more “carbon emissions,” therefore we will have to buy more carbon credits from the less industrialized or developing countries (see video, immediately below) which is how redistribution of wealth would be inflicted upon us. We are essentially paying developing countries for being the bad industrialized nation that we are.
We are no longer revered for the principled, thus successful, thus powerful country we are. We are now being demonized for most of the ills on the planet, from poverty where we are not, to bad weather wherever it may be. We are much too industrialized and well-off, and the globalists behind the global sustainability movement have every intention of changing that. All this, under the false premise of climate change not being a matter of earth’s natural fluctuations and cycles, but a malevolent doing of man that man has to control, by in turn controlling man.
That is the key word, control. This is about not only bringing America to its knees, it is also about control of both resources and people, conveniently with systematic profiteering for the very few, who would treat the world as one directed complex, with enough low-consumption laborers and managers to fulfill the controllers’ own objectives.
If they really wanted to transform the world for the betterment of all, they would help other countries become what this country has become. We remember, right? — the country where many people from other countries came, to be a part of it all. The country where people foresaw a better way of life, for their families.
Contributor: Flyover Insider