In my last commentary, I connected the dots between The Third Way and Loretta Lynch, Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission, which orchestrated the state energy crisis. Of course, there would be no crisis if California had sources of power within the state that were privately owned by the utility companies.
By now, we are all aware that our lack of energy sources may be attributed to environmentalists, California producing less energy per person than any other state: A nuclear power plant that was never built, opposition to the burning of fossil fuels — which they say causes global warming and massive deaths, hindering the building of natural gas pipelines where the deer and the caribou roam and blocking creation of more “clean energy” hydroelectric source dams so that salmon can go upstream to die. There is even a movement to tear down our present dams. Now whereas these good-intentioned people are concerned with the deaths of fish and caribou, they have nothing but contempt for modern civilization. Indeed, their policies would mean the death of our high-tech standard of living — which is the best in the world — and a good thing it dies, they would say.
In some places in California, it’s already happening. Intel, which could provide thousands of new jobs, has canceled its plans to build a new Silicon Valley site because of the specter of blackouts. And a glass-making company in central California is shutting down and looking elsewhere because, if the power goes off to its ovens, the shut-down/re-start process costs $3 million. Home computers can “die” too when subjected to power losses and surges. So while modern civilization dies, wildlife flourishes, thanks to the nature-worshipping religion of the environmentalists.
I confess to being one of the first to be duped by the Sierra Club. For years, I simplified my Christmas shopping by giving their calendars as presents. But let us look at the hidden Marxist agenda behind all those pretty pictures.
The Pacific power grid, which can shoot power from Canada to Mexico, or state to state as need be, was the brainchild of Southern California Edison’s Bill Gould, who was an industry pioneer in the quest for renewable energy sources. As such, he sought to work with the Sierra Club’s David Brower because, as the Club went, so went the environmentalists. Back in the 1980s, Gould approached the problem in the spirit of compromise because alternative energy solutions are always more expensive than nuclear or hydroelectric power.
He was in for a rude awakening. There could be no compromise because modern society, with all its transgressions against nature, indigenous peoples, wildlife and the planet collectively, had to be dismantled. In its place, a new society would spring up like new growth after a devastating forest fire. And what were the Sierra Club guidelines for this utopia? “The Club of Rome,” Gould was told.
The bible for the Club of Rome is a 1972 book entitled “Limits to Growth,” a sky-is-falling paean to impending global disaster due to industrialization. The solution is not to be found merely in an individual return to nature in teepees, but — and here’s the Marxist joker in the deck — in a New World Order government, highly collectivist in nature, in which individual nations and individual peoples have no autonomy over their lives and property. Shades of Hitler, Stalin and Mao!
Who of the New World Order are in the Club of Rome? We’ve all heard about the millions of acres Clinton “protected,” ostensibly for Mother Nature, but in reality for this shadow-world government. The Club of Rome now consists of “100 individuals, at present drawn from 52 countries and five continents … international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state.”
At its web site, it describes itself as a “non governemental (sic) organisation (NGO),” but NWO (for New World Order) is a more appropriate description. Yet it says it acts as a global catalyst for change that is “free of any political, ideological or business interest.” In other words, without any interest or agenda whatsoever, if you can believe that! But, they say, individual countries must abandon “sterile nationalism,” and individual self-interest in order to work towards that old Marxist hook “the greater good.” However, if one reads from their archives about their conferences and reports, one concludes that their antagonism to national autonomy is based upon an international Marxist agenda.
In December 1997, the Clinton administration negotiated a treaty in Kyoto, Japan that would commit the U.S. to reducing by 2012 its carbon dioxide emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. Obviously this would entail a scaling back in industrial growth to the extent that emissions would be 30 to 40% less than what they would normally be by 2012, if business in the country continued to grow on the same projected curve that it is now. Analyses by econometrics firms have determined that if the Kyoto Accord is put into effect in the U.S., the disastrous result would be 2 to 3 million jobs lost, extremely high increases in fuel and electricity rates — resulting in disproportionate costs to low-income families and, finally, overall economic losses of $300 billion per year.
One can imagine that few if any Congressmen would be able to sell their constituency on such a hit in the wallet, so Clinton didn’t even try to get Congressional approval but, just as he committed our men and women to war in Kosovo, he committed the U.S. to following the accord on November 12, 1998. The agreement — which calls for drastic reductions in so-called greenhouse gases by 38 industrial nations — was signed at the U.N. by U.S. ambassador Peter Burleigh. The White House chimed in with a statement that the signing “reaffirms America’s commitment to work with the international community to turn the broad concepts of the Kyoto Protocol into working realities.”
All in all, 57 countries signed the agreement, but the joker in the deck is that while it pretends to favor Mother Nature it is, in reality, a New World Order, Third Way, ploy to control businesses in industrial nations, effectively hamstringing them individually and the industrial nations collectively so that undeveloped nations, and population giants like India and China, can overtake them.
How so? None of these less-industrialized countries have any emission restrictions put upon them whatsoever. As we know, China has vast coal reserves, the burning of which results in high percentages of greenhouse gases. Indeed, no other nation benefits more than China. Could it be that Clinton’s accommodation to Kyoto which hamstrings the U.S. while enabling Chinese industry to flourish, is a further payoff for the millions in campaign donations from the PLA? And have you heard, our army is ordering black berets from China for several million dollars? Heretofore, berets were a special badge of honor, worn only by the Army elite Special Forces. Now men and women of all branches of the Army will wear them. Perhaps this is a trickle-down effect from the Clinton administration, what I call the “Monica-ization” of the Army.
Now imagine this scenario. It is 1940, and Roosevelt has instructed our ambassador to Japan to sign an agreement that will eventually restrict our industrial growth by 30%. Even today, such a drastic idea can only be sold to the public on the ruse of saving the planet. So whether one is an advocate of curtailing greenhouse gases or not depends on whether one accepts the premise that the planet is warming, and that the cause is carbon dioxide emissions (CO2).
Unfortunately, science, which should be objective about the truth of global warming, fails us here, because most of those scientists who support the doomsday theory are “on the take,” that is, have been paid by this or that foundation or government to support the theory. Indeed, some scientists tell of receiving instructions to destroy any evidence they find that contradicts global warming. But truly objective scientists who have no ax to grind are nearly unanimous in saying that the data do not indicate global warming. In short, some scientists are being manipulated by politicians in order to implement a global agenda, which I shall delineate momentarily.
Make no mistake, it is a New World Order(NWO) agenda, which began to gain momentum as soon as the stealth-socialist Clinton became President in 1992. And if the scientific evidence about global warning is not conclusive, no problem — witness Principle 15 from the June 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage [to the environment], lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Prior to the U.N. conference, some 4,000 scientists worldwide signed the so-called Heidelberg Appeal to the heads of states meeting there, warning them that the scientific basis for such a global treaty was completely inadequate. Of course, what can science do in the face of a NWO global agenda driven by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Scientists on the take for these governments have been publishing climate reports since 1990 under the umbrella of the IPCC.
These reports have been analyzed and picked apart by Fred Singer, the champion of the climatologist majority, who debunked the notion of global warming. In The Washington Times (4/22/98) he wrote the following:
Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted “scientific consensus” on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists — more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees — have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
The petition urges the U.S. government to reject the accord, which tries to force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with a Senate resolution, passed by a 95-to-0 vote in July, which turns down any Kyoto agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world’s nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India and Brazil. Many citizens and organizations also object to the prospective loss of national sovereignty — with international inspectors monitoring energy use by businesses, municipalities and even the military, and with U.N. courts imposing sanctions and fines on Americans who do not abide by U.N.-established quotas and regulations.
In signing the petition within a period of less than six weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists profess their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto accord. The available atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the accord as “proof” of a major future warming.
A covering letter enclosed with the petition, signed by Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, makes this quite clear: “The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
Singer goes on to dispute the White House’s contention that there is a “consensus of 2,500 climate scientists” about global warming, calling the claim “a complete fabrication, “because the contributors to the IPCC reports were never even polled about global warming, and only a very small percentage of them qualify as climate scientists. Furthermore, he states, many of the IPCC scientists are critical of the imminent global warming conclusions made in the reports and, therefore, have signed the petition against the Kyoto Accord.
So the bottom line is this: NWO politicians make a treaty designed to specifically punish the U.S. in order to make it more vulnerable to control by the NWO, and the President of the U.S. commits us to its restrictions even though the U.S. Senate rejects it unanimously 95-0.
The Club of Rome and its myriad international which would return America to the horse and buggy days, on the pretext of saving the planet, is like a many-headed hydra. Up until now, they have been able to control every national government in order to further their agenda. But on March 14, President Bush wrote four congressional Republicans who had asked him to clarify his position on CO2 emissions, after hearing confusing remarks by EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman. Bush said, “I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.”
Remember always that the ultimate goal of the NWO and international Marxism in Russia and China, and in the presence of the Democratic Socialists of America, 58 strong in the House of Representatives, is to weaken America enough to take control. Once power has been seized, the socialists always start killing, witness the 100 million deaths in the 20th century documented in “The Black Book of Communism.”
Naturally, any agenda for so weakening America has to be pursued stealthily. I pointed out in my former article that California Governor Davis picked Loretta Lynch to be the PUC Commissioner because of her Third Way roots to Bill Clinton. When he became head of the Democratic Leadership Council in 1990, she began to work with and for him as a presidential candidate. “The Third Way” between capitalism and socialism retains private ownership of business but dictates the conditions — including prices — whereby business labors for and at the pleasure of government.
An item in the March 24 “San Francisco Chronicle” blows the cover on Davis’ stealth Third Way agenda. Four California newspapers, the “Wall Street Journal,” and the Associated Press, are all suing Davis because he refuses to disclose the terms of the long-term contracts which he has signed to buy power from wholesalers. You may recall that California’s predicament came about because Lynch’s PUC deregulated price controls on what wholesalers could charge the state for power, while continuing to freeze the retail price private utilities could charge its customers, taking PG & E and others to the brink of bankruptcy. The Third Way solution was to demand that the utilities sell their power transmission lines to the state, thereby enabling the state to get into the energy business, and to get more control over our lives than they now have.
But even the liberal “Chronicle” was alarmed at Davis’ secret deals. “The Governor is spending billions of dollars of public funds with these contracts, and taxpayers have no idea what he is committing them to,” said editor Jerry Roberts. Furthermore, the article noted that the secret contracts violated the California Public Records Act. As we saw with Clinton’s tenure in the White House, state and federal laws — and particularly the Constitution — are viewed as but minor impediments to the NWO agenda.
As I noted above, President Bush has refused to restrict CO2 emissions, which this week led to the European Union’s attacking his stand. Now let us see how so-called “campaign finance reform” might impact an issue such as global warming. From what the majority of climatologists have concluded, Bush’s stand seems to be based on the reality that there is no global warming. Nevertheless, the agenda of all the international organizations who support the theory appears to weaken America by reducing its productivity as a result of reducing CO2 emissions.
I spoke of the Sierra Club as the foremost advocate of the Club of Rome’s environmental policies. On the Sierra Club’s website, they trumpet the U.N.’s IPCC February report, “Climate Change 2001,” and attack all of the new administration’s environmental policies, just as one might expect. However, on ABC’s “World News Tonight” (3/24/01), the program began as follows: “Today European Union leaders urged the president to recommit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions which are believed to contribute to global warming.” There followed a recounting of fault-finding with no less than six of Bush’s environmental policies taken verbatim from the Sierra Club website, which begins, “The Sierra Club calls President Bush’s latest moves on the environment ‘March Madness.'”
Except for a brief defense of Bush policies by EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, all of the piece is devoted to unfavorable reactions to the policies by the likes of Senators Schumer and Boxer. We know by their track record that the mainstream media will attack Republicans, even to the point of lying about their agenda, and will defend Democrats. The Sierra Club didn’t have to spend a dime — yet, their attack on Bush, “Risks Children’s Future with Global Warming U-Turn,” is widely promulgated by ABC. That it is a lie doesn’t matter to ABC.
How would the Republicans go about defending their policies and rebutting the lie? By buying a TV ad to tell the truth about CO2 emissions. But under proposed campaign finance laws, they would not have the funds to buy such an ad. In short, the bill is better re-titled as the “Media Lying and Liberal Spin Empowerment Act.”
Richard Roberts is the author of eight books and publishes a weekly newsletter on current events for $12.00 a year.