09/19/12

Obama’s Cap & Trade Executive Order: Redistribution via Agenda 21

by as Dawn sees it & Arlen Williams

Video, “Obama In 1998: ‘I Actually Believe In Redistribution’“

Finally, in 2012, much is being made of a haltering soliliquy by Barack Obama in 1998, on the redistribution of America’s wealth, the audio provided above and an excerpt shown below.

…we do have to be innovative in thinking, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion I guess would be that the trick – and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues – I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systerms that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution….

Agenda 21’s clutching hand

Throughout the Agenda 21 publication one sees talk of “developed” and “developing” countries. One soon understands they are referring to the United States as a “developed” country (rich, industrialized, oil consuming, and not good for the environment or the world overall, by its portrayals) while other nations are called as “developing” countries (the poorer countries).

Below is an example in Agenda 21 which declares it is the richer nations which are putting an undue burden on poorer nations, through their “excessive demands and unsustainable lifestyles.”

Section I Social & Economic Dimensions Chapter 4

A. Focusing on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption

Basis for action

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.

in Agenda 21

It does not take long to see out how the authors intend for the world to feel about our “developed” country. As contempt for the United States seems to be growing around the world (as well as amidst various groups inside our own country) it will not require much convincing to many, that our nation somehow owes the rest of the world.

On the other hand, this is all about “saving the planet” right? What a perfect opportunity to redistribute our wealth. But, how does one go about redistributing wealth gloabally? This is where Cap and Trade comes in.

Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on August 30, 2012, titled “Accelerating Investment in Energy Efficiency.” It is one of a surprising number of EO’s having to do with Agenda 21 and its redistributive effects. The word accelerate is a key. Why the need to push this through fast?

As much must be done as possible, as soon as possible, before many Americans catch on. Let us look at a few things in the Agenda 21 publication about energy (italics added) to begin to see how this is to be accomplished.

A. Integrating environment and development at the policy, planning and management levels

Basis for action

8.2. Prevailing systems for decision-making in many countries tend to separate economic, social and environmental factors at the policy, planning and management levels. This influences the actions of all groups in society, including Governments, industry and individuals, and has important implications for the efficiency and sustainability of development. An adjustment or even a fundamental reshaping of decision-making, in the light of country-specific conditions, may be necessary if environment and development is to be put at the centre of economic and political decision-making, in effect achieving a full integration of these factors. In recent years, some Governments have also begun to make significant changes in the institutional structures of government in order to enable more systematic consideration of the environment when decisions are made on economic, social, fiscal, energy, agricultural, transportation, trade and other policies, as well as the implications of policies in these areas for the environment. New forms of dialogue are also being developed for achieving better integration among national and local government, industry, science, environmental groups and the public in the process of developing effective approaches to environment and development. The responsibility for bringing about changes lies with Governments in partnership with the private sector and local authorities, and in collaboration with national, regional and international organizations, including in particular UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank. Exchange of experience between countries can also be significant. National plans, goals and objectives, national rules, regulations and law, and the specific situation in which different countries are placed are the overall framework in which such integration takes place. In this context, it must be borne in mind that environmental standards may pose severe economic and social costs if they are uniformly applied in developing countries.

in Agenda 21

While most have been going about their daily lives unaware, the future of our country is being “transformed” into something that will not resemble the United States of America. The entire world is being transformed. To think that the United States will not be included in all these plans is naive at best.

And they have target dates for all that is being done; the date that keeps coming up is 2020. (Perhaps the name Rio+20 refers to this, as well as 2012’s twentieth anniversary of the Rio Accord’s adoption.) Below is an excerpt from the “IUCN World Conservation Congress”

10. We must mainstream sustainability in societal decisions, supporting the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements, including the Rio Conventions, and the recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

11. We must work with the public and private sectors to enhance the transfer of green technology, share knowledge, experience and skills to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem values into global production and consumption. We encourage governments and businesses to pursue inclusive and gender-responsive green growth that ensures social integration of vulnerable groups, helps eradicate poverty, and keeps humanity’s footprint within ecological boundaries.

13. All sectors of society must participate fully in implementing the outcomes of Rio+20 at all levels, including the formulation of well-targeted Sustainable Development Goals. We must mobilize all stakeholders for the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets (adopted at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity) as important means to tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and to enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services.

in IUCN World Conservation Congress

Let us look at portions of the aformentioned Executive Order, “Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency,” to see how the US is doing in making the transfer to “green technology.”

Sec. 2. Encouraging Investment in Industrial Efficiency. The Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall coordinate policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency in order to reduce costs for industrial users, improve U.S. competitiveness, create jobs, and reduce harmful air pollution. In doing so, they shall engage States, industrial companies, utility companies, and other stakeholders to accelerate this investment. Specifically, these agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(a) coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to achieve a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost effective industrial CHP in the United States by the end of 2020;

(b) convene stakeholders, through a series of public workshops, to develop and encourage the use of best practice State policies and investment models that address the multiple barriers to investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP;

(c) utilize their respective relevant authorities and resources to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP, such as by:

(i) providing assistance to States on accounting for the potential emission reduction benefits of CHP and other energy efficiency policies when developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve national ambient air quality standards;

(ii) providing incentives for the deployment of CHP and other types of clean energy, such as set asides under emissions allowance trading program state implementation plans, grants, and loans;

(iii) employing output based approaches as compliance options in power and industrial sector regulations, as appropriate, to recognize the emissions benefits of highly efficient energy generation technologies like CHP; and

(iv) seeking to expand participation in and create additional tools to support the Better Buildings, Better Plants program at the Department of Energy, which is working with companies to help them achieve a goal of reducing energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years, as well as utilizing existing partnership programs to support energy efficiency and CHP;

in Executive Order — Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency

To put it simply this is “Cap and Trade,” iniatiated with the help of the EPA and other agencies, as shown above. For example, looking at the “emissions allowance trading program” one finds this is just another name for “Cap and Trade.”

The “Quick links” on the page lined below lead one to a treasure trove of information corroborative of this very extensive and encroaching set of policies, directed by Agenda 21, aimed at global redistribution of wealth, all under the control of those who control the United Nations.

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 NO_x 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.

at http://www.epa.gov/captrade

…I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with, as opposed to just political issues – I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systerms that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution…
— Barack Obama

And will Mitt Romney commit to reversing this Executive Order?

09/19/12

Obama’s Foreign Policy Now in Flames

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

Tancredo to Prez:

The world isn’t a Fairyland of Cosmic Brotherhood

A U.S. ambassador is dead, and over 30 U.S. embassies across the globe are under violent attack as a direct result of President Obama’s attempted appeasement of radical Islam. How many more Americans will die before that policy can be reversed and Obama removed from office?

Keep in mind that by international treaty and tradition, every embassy in a foreign nation is considered the sovereign soil of that nation. Climbing a wall and invading an embassy compound is the same as invading that country.

The horrific events of Sept. 11, 2012, in Egypt and Benghazi were a logical and predictable result of appeasement policies that began with Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo apologizing for America’s past insensitivities to the hopes and beliefs of the Muslim faith.

Obama chose last Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the 2001 murder of over 3,000 Americans by a team of radical Islamists, to send a formal message to the world: “The U.S. will never be at war with Islam.” At that moment a crowd of over 2,000 Islamists were attacking the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, breaching its wall and burning the American flag.

What was the first response of the Obama government to this attack on our Cairo embassy and the failure of the Egyptian government to protect our sovereign soil? The embassy issued an apology for the actions of private individuals in the U.S. who put a film on YouTube that insults Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

It took the Obama White House almost 12 hours to disavow that apology and over 24 hours for Obama to talk directly with Egyptian President Morsi to elicit an apology and a promise of increased protection for the embassy. However, the apologies continue: The White House has asked YouTube to review the controversial film to see if it meets its standards. Has the administration ever done this for any other privately produced 14-minute film?

So, what did Egyptian President Morsi do next? Did Morsi attempt to calm the stormy waters by going on Egyptian television to explain that a film produced by private citizens had no relation to official U.S. foreign policy? No. Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization that had condoned the embassy protests only 24 hours earlier, called on the citizens of Egypt to engage in “peaceful protests” against the film.

The brutal fact of the matter is that President Obama’s weak actions since the violent events in Cairo and Benghazi have only served to fuel the protests, not deter them. This should surprise no one because Obama’s anti-Israel foreign policy has been fueling anti-Americanism across the region since the day he took office.

The other undeniable fact is that the protests against the United States now under way at our embassies – embassies across the world, not only in the Middle East – are not the actions of a small radical band of extremists. The protests have the support and reflect the official position of the Egyptian government and other Islamic regimes in the region.

This support for the protests by Islamic governments across the world may force the U.S. news media to acknowledge a reality they have worked hard to ignore and suppress: it is mainstream Shariah law, not some radical heresy, which demands that offenses against Islam and insults to the prophet Muhammad be severely punished – punished by civil authorities.

These protests and this crisis should serve to educate Americans about the true character of the escalating cultural war between the civilized West and the Islamic world. It is Islam itself and not only al-Qaida and the Taliban that rejects the civil-liberties traditions of Western democracies. The controversy over this film puts a huge spotlight on one central fact: Islam does not recognize or allow for any separation of church and state, and any criticism of the prophet Muhammad in the form of books, films, or cartoons will be met with violence.

No Islamic country would allow a film to be made or shown – or even possessed – critical of Islam. OK, you say, that is their privilege. But why has the U.S. State Department under Obama shown support for the efforts of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – led by Egypt and Iran – to get the United Nations to adopt a resolution demanding that all nations adopt this same principle? Egypt has been among the Arab nations leading the effort to subordinate the U.S. Constitution to Islamic Shariah law.

Obama does not want to acknowledge or respond to the fact that to a billion Muslims across the globe, it is the obligation of the American government to punish the individuals who made that film. That must be one reason for his decision to miss his Wednesday intelligence briefing and flee to Las Vegas and the campaign trail. Obama is perplexed and confused by these events. These things are not supposed to happen in his fairyland of cosmic brotherhood.

Obama’s only material response to the murder of Ambassador Stevens on Tuesday was to send a contingent of U.S. Marines to Libya to protect our embassy in Tripoli. Will he now send 60 or a hundred additional Marine units to protect the other embassies now under siege?

The proper diplomatic response to threats against embassies that cannot or will not be handled by the host government is to close the embassy and bring diplomatic personnel home. That is what Obama should do in Cairo and a dozen other Islamic nations.

The American media establishment has been working overtime to help Obama change the subject from the dismal consequences of his economic policies. Suddenly the media must do the same for the bloody consequences of his inept and foolish foreign policies.

Cover of "In Mortal Danger: The Battle fo...

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don’t miss Tom Tancredo’s book, “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security” – now just $7.95!

09/19/12

Obama & PLO Khalidi 2003 – LA Times Release The Videotape

The Obamas seated with Palestinian Liberation Organization Leader Edward Said at Khalidi Muslim fundraiser, per RadioPatriot.com

By: Toddy Littman

Since the leftist media is making the story September 18, 2012 about what Romney said in an off-the-cuff moment at some fundraiser, which was actually the most conservative I’ve heard him, as well as the most honest, then it would seem it’s time to call on the President of the United States to demand that the Los Angeles Times release the video that was given to them in 2008.

In fact, the LA Times is accused of “suppressing” the video by the McCain campaign on October 29th, 2008:

“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb… The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public.”

And then argues that they essentially broke the story:

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

Of course the comments of some person designated the “Readers’ Representative,” that it appears also works for the LA times, was piled on:

Jamie Gold, the newspaper’s readers’ representative, said in a statement: “More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light.”

All of this is here in this LA Times (biased) article about the whole situation, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story.

Ask yourself if “a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape” is the same as seeing the people present there, to see Barack Obama present and to hear the actual direct comments from the horse’s mouth. Then ask yourself if that readers’ representative is representing the readers’ view.

And of course, there is more about this at a variety of blogs. This one features a number of excerpts from the LA Times “detailed account.” Using another blog as a guide (that didn’t cite the article with 100% accuracy, http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/la-times-has-video-of-obama-attending.html), I’ll share the portions they noted word for word, such as this “poetry reading” that Barack Obama sat through:

“At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

“One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”” — http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/10/nation/na-obamamideast10

And then there is this statement that, in light of the current situation in the Middle East, appears almost prophetic:

“His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”” — Ibid.

I hope you can appreciate that President Obama is, as President of the United States, the head of the Democratic Party. Thus, the changes in the platform, such as removing recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, were, it appears, known, and maybe even initiated, by President Obama. His supposed request to have it reinstated at the convention….A programmed spin on the situation perhaps? Considering the state anti-Americanism today, you be the judge.

Could this type of failure to exercise the Freedom of The Press, by failing to publish the video itself, be a clearer explanation of media bias? I think not.

But…The point of this article is something far less sinister, and more to point to the very manipulations being done by the White House regarding the Mitt Romney video excerpt.

For the first time I actually heard a conservative Mitt Romney by what he said in this video clip, a true Tea Party conservative who seems to have come to a greater, more Federalist Papers view, of Our Written Constitution.

This, my friends is the scariest thing the Obama Campaign could have nightmares over, that “Massachusetts Mitt” would have left his Saul Alinsky student father’s Progressive teachings, and come to the light of reality, appreciating, comprehending, and embracing conservative principles.

So, naturally, Obama’s people pounce on this video, bringing forward how careful you have to be of what you say, blah blah blah…. While to this day the Los Angeles Times hasn’t released this 2003 video of President Obama Toasting Rashid Khalidi, a former and known PLO spokesman, who, it appears, was also a good friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Now, sure conservatives had their say about it. Rush Limbaugh’s take, Gateway Pundit show the hypocrisy in relation to Sarah Palin, Debbie Schussel sets forth that a “beheading dance” occurred at the event as well. And I fault nor argue against any of these, in fact believing that, without the LA Times releasing the Obama/Khalidi video and especially at Obama’s insistence for the sake of transparency, that there is a bias shown that denies us ever knowing the truth about what happened there, a bias imposed from the top at the Los Angeles Times.

But the bigger picture here is that Obama and his campaign are criticizing directly and by innuendo what Mitt Romney said behind closed doors that happened to be videotaped, while, in perfect Obama hypocrite fashion, continuing to keep the Obama/Khalidi 2003 video, that also was behind closed doors and happened to be videotaped, from being released to the public.

In the Obama narrative by example, this is Obama’s idea, his vision, of “fairness.” The unconstitutional media bias in his favor, Obama exploits videos of his opponent while knowing full well his friends in the Liberal Progressive Media that Media Matters isn’t caring about, will not release his “reality TV” from 2003 that could have changed the entire election.

The LA Times is just another “news” organization that hides behind the First Amendment while actually acting in a manner inconsistent with their corporate charter that established them as a news organization, to be treated with certain exemptions and privileges in accordance with the idea of the First Amendment.

To me, a suit against the Secretary of State where the LA Times is headquartered, mandating that their charter be revoked until such time as they act consistent with being a member of the “free press,” for a period of not less than 2 years, is in order. And they can start by releasing the 2003 video tape so We The People who are their customers can determine for ourselves if Peter Wallsten’s LA Times article cited above is “a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape,” or if Mr. Wallsten took some editorial license, likely by omission.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. There is more to this but I have left much out for the sake of brevity.

09/19/12

Romney ‘opportunity’ trumps Obama ‘wealth redistribution’ plan

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Barack Obama and the mainstream media have been frantically flooding their newscasts with the secret ’47 percent’ video of Gov. Mitt Romney, while addressing a May meeting of high-dollar campaign donors, in order ‘manage’ the news cycle away from the president’s disastrous economic policies and the flaming anti-American cacophony of chaos incinerating the Middle East and Southeast Asia–signaling the complete collapse of the president’s Islamic appeasement doctrine.

Unfortunately for Left, just as they were about to ‘spike the ball’ against Team Romney, an audio tape of then Senator Barack Obama surfaced, recorded during a Loyola University [Chicago] conference in 1998, wherein he very elegantly explained his belief in the ‘redistribution of wealth’ by government–so that everyone could get a ‘fair shot,’ according to a FOXNews article today.

I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution–because I actually believe in redistribution at least at a certain level–to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.

Gov. Mitt Romney noted that President Obama has created a “great divide” in the country.

I know some believe the government should take from some to give to the others. [But], I think the president makes it clear in the tape that was released today that that’s what he believes–I think that’s an entirely foreign concept.

Frankly, we have two very different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There’s a tape that just came out today (with) the president saying he likes redistribution. I disagree.

I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America.

The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth.

Matt Rhoades, the Romney Campaign Manager, also jumped on this jewel this morning in a memo, as reported in another FOXNews article today, because the mainstream media seems to be trying to ‘sweep it under the rug.’

Mitt Romney’s vision for America is an opportunity society, where free people and free enterprise thrive and success is admired and emulated, not attacked. President Obama’s vision for America is a government-centered society, where government grows bigger and more active, occupying more of our everyday lives.

We don’t have to look far to see the failure of President Obama’s approach. We can look at his record…

Wherein after he cited high unemployment, heavy regulatory burden and millions of people in poverty and/or on food stamps.

If Barack Obama were reelected and completely implemented everything from the ‘Buffet Rule‘ to ‘Obamacare,’ the United States would no doubt soon be in the same predicament as France now faces.

France’s newly elected President, Socialist Party member Francois Hollande, who critics remind everyone was quoted as saying “I dislike the rich,” along with France’s new Socialist government, plan to enact a 75% income tax rate on French citizens earning more than 1 million Euros per year, according to a September 10, 2012 Associated Press article.

Bernard Arnault, the CEO of French fashion giant LVMH, which owns Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior, is also the richest man in Europe and fourth most wealthy in the world, whose fortune Forbes has estimated at $41 billion, ignited an uproar in France over taxes, citizenship, patriotism and what policies the government needs to promote growth, by confirming on Sunday his application for dual citizenship in Belgium–where the maximum tax rate is only 50%.

However, as a Belgian citizen, if he renounced his French citizenship he could take advantage of the cherished tax-free status that Belgians hold in Monaco–which has no income tax–and is the tax domicile for hundreds of wealthy individuals in the world.

Arnault also left French Socialist fanatics behind in 1981, when Francois Mitterrand was elected President, by emigrating to the U.S., returning only after the France’s tax policies were made more conservative.

The article also uncovered another interesting paradox in France:

A country that prides itself on producing exorbitantly-priced luxury fashion has tax policies that target the very people rich enough to buy French goods.

This is just another version of the ‘bite the hand that feeds you’ entitlement-mentality that has been ‘seeded’ by Liberals in America.

France’s former Conservative Prime Minister, Francois Fillon, directly blamed Arnault’s course of action on the Socialist government’s tax policy, and declaring…

This will spread like wildfire; and all over the planet they’ll say that France is the country that doesn’t like success.

Sounds familiar, just like the prophecy of Gov. Mitt Romney and the Conservatives, should Barack Obama win reelection–which would be le fini for America’s future too.

Perhaps American voters leaning toward President Obama could take a lesson from today’s editorial page headline in Belgium’s daily paper, La Libre, which, even though Mr. Arnault has been living in a Brussels suburb for several months already, declared:

Welcome, Mr. Arnault!

And, British Prime Minister David Cameron has wasted no time in wooing French firms to Great Britain–by “rolling out the Red Carpet,” in the face of Frances Socialist government wanting to rob them blind.

Finally, there is our story on Brazilian-born, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who renounced his 10-year U.S. citizenship a year ago and moved to Singapore permanently–along with a few billion dollars of Facebook IPO cash.

Remember, there is nothing to stop the wealthy from moving to where they are loved and respected–absolutely nothing.

09/19/12